More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
If you download it with the Real Player option, the Real Player it gives is out of date. Another 8 megs to download!! Four themes available for Netscape 6.2.1, why even bother? No killfille for newsgroups. Tons of reports of transferring mail settings from Communicator to 6.2.1 As reported today, searching via the sidebar or address bar sends the information to AOL first then the search engine of choice. Spyware!! The composer (web-authoring tool) is a total mess. AOL putting bookmarks and shortcuts all over your computer. Can you imagine the outcry if Microsoft products did this to the Netscape browser? Did I mention it sucks up a ton of memory? Even AOL rejects Netscape, choosing to use Microsoft Explorer for AOL 7.0 Loads slower than Explorer and Opera.
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
Ted, enough please ... Netscape Basher wrote: > > If you download it with the Real Player option, the Real Player it gives > is out of date. Another 8 megs to download!! > > Four themes available for Netscape 6.2.1, why even bother? > > No killfille for newsgroups. > > Tons of reports of transferring mail settings from Communicator to 6.2.1 > > As reported today, searching via the sidebar or address bar sends the > information to AOL first then the search engine of choice. Spyware!! > > The composer (web-authoring tool) is a total mess. > > AOL putting bookmarks and shortcuts all over your computer. Can you > imagine the outcry if Microsoft products did this to the Netscape browser? > > Did I mention it sucks up a ton of memory? > > Even AOL rejects Netscape, choosing to use Microsoft Explorer for AOL 7.0 > > Loads slower than Explorer and Opera.
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
This is a newsgroup for Mozilla, not Netscape. We don't care about AOL's shortcuts or spyware coz we don't have them.
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
> netscape.public.mozilla.general > > Then rename the group so it doesn't say Netscape in it. You Mozilla > gurus are always telling people that Netscape is not Mozilla. Even Mozilla people have always been complaining about the netscape in the name of the mozilla newsgroup. It confuses a lot of people. We are lucky though that Netscape allowed us to setup a newsgroup in their server. Maybe you can donate a news server to us so we can name it anything we want? :) I am not a Mozilla guru, just a Mozilla user. And yes, Netscape is Mozilla inasmuch as Neoplanet is IE.
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
> Also check out what client I am using tonight. > That gives me the right to bash. I can see that you are using Netscape, not Mozilla. That gives you the right to bash Netscape. Not Mozilla. Please download Mozilla from www.mozilla.org to know that your complaints do not apply to Mozilla. Among the first things you will notice are: 1) Moz doesn't come with Real Player. 2) Moz doesn't put AOL shortcuts everywhere. 3) Moz doesn't send searches to Netscape. 4) Composer is much better than Netscape's. 5) It uses a lot less memory than Netscape. 6) With Quick Launch on, it now loads faster than IE and Opera. I agree with you that Netscape 6 sucks. Everyone in Mozilla agrees with you here. However, most of your comments only apply to Netscape, not to Mozilla. This is the reason I switched to Mozilla. About why there is no 1.0 yet, please read this article: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2000/08/18/magazine/good_lizard.html An analogy: Two men were tasked to saw a large pile of wood each. The first man, eager to finish quickly, started to saw at once. The second man did not start immediately, but instead he sharpened his saw. In the end, who did a better job? Hundreds of "quickie" browsers are made everyday. I myself can just drop an IE ActiveX control into a VB form and I have my own browser! But Mozilla.org decided to build an underlying technology instead, called XPCOM and XUL, that will allow Mozilla to work across different platforms. These technologies are like sharpening the saw. Once they are done, making the browser (cutting the wood) is much better. 4 years is not bad, considering that it took Microsoft 12 years to build their set of API's and it still doesn't work perfectly. I agree with you that Moz Mail is not yet as good as OE. I myself am writing this message in Outlook Express. But Moz is improving at a much faster rate than IE/OE. I'm willing to bet that 5 years from now Moz will be the browser and email client of choice for most people. Have a nice day. Bamm
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
> No killfilter on usenet? That is a big issue. It is a big issue. It will be added soon. But don't expect it done in 1.0. The purpose of 1.0 is to provide an API freeze, not a final end-user product. > High memory usage? That is a big issue. It is being worked on. Btw, Netscape 6.2.1 uses over 3 times as much memory than Mozilla nightly 2002030803 which I am currently using. > Abandonment of theme development on 6.2.1? Shitting on users The theme format has changed. But 1.0 will provide an API freeze, meaning formats will not change from there on. When Netscape 6.5 comes out (which will be based on Moz 1.0) you can build themes which will be guaranteed to work with all future versions of NS. > Giving you a worthless version of Real Player? That is a big issue I am using Moz nightly 2002030803 and I don't recall having Real Player installed. Perhaps we are using a different browser. > Having to register it? That is a big issue I am using Moz nightly 2002030803 and I don't recall having to register it. Perhaps you are complaining about the wrong browser. > Mega problems with Communicator moving their settings to it? > That is a big issue I am using Moz nightly 2002030803 and I don't recall having problems moving my Communicator settings. Perhaps you are not using Moz. > AOL refuses to use it on 7.0 when they could of? That is a big issue. Because it still doesn't have a frozen set of API's. AOL is waiting for 1.0 so they could use it.
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
Netscape Basher wrote: > And I've noticed you can't name one single meaningful advantage Netscape > 6.21 has over IE 6.0 > > No killfilter on usenet? That is a big issue. Well... it is a bit annoying, but "big issue"? no. > High memory usage? That is a big issue. Not in my opinion. > Abandonment of theme development on 6.2.1? Shitting on users Pardon?? You call it "shitting on users" providing five themes for a browser? > Giving you a worthless version of Real Player? That is a big issue Which version does Netscape come with? But anyway, if you want a newer one, don't install the one distributed with Netscape, but get it from real.com. This is not at all a big issue. > Having to register it? That is a big issue You don't have to register it. > Mega problems with Communicator moving their settings to it? That is a > big issue I have never had such a problem with Mozilla, can't speak about Netscape. > And the fact it's been four years and STILL no 1.0 Mozilla version, and > the roadmap continues to be moved back. My personal guess is that 1.0 will be released in April, as the roadmap states. > And the fact more bugs are being found than fixed. Most "new found bugs" are really either already known or requests for enhancements. > It's taken the Mozilla folks four years and still not a full version of > Mozilla yet. Every day a full version of Mozilla is made available. > Another sneaky Netscape trick, it sneaks web.aol.com as a > trusted site in MS Internet Explorer making it override your default > settings for all sites. Does it? I don't know. But Mozilla definitely does not do this. -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
Netscape Basher wrote: > You mean like this one? > Check out the name. It says Netscape. Eh. Mozilla was originally Netscape product, so this newsgroup is in the netscape.* hierarchy. It is planned to rename these groups to mozilla.* to avoid this confusion. Still, *this* newsgroup is for discussing Mozilla, not Netscape. -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
> > Having to register it? That is a big issue > > You don't have to register it. He's right on this one. I tried to install Netscape 6.2.1 on my friend's new computer. Netscape will not open the first time until you sign up with a Netcenter account. But my friend could not sign up because she has no internet connection yet. Result: the activation page won't go away. So I uninstalled Netscape and installed Mozilla and all was fine. Bamm :)
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
Bamm Gabriana wrote: >>>Having to register it? That is a big issue >> >>You don't have to register it. > > He's right on this one.[...] > So I uninstalled Netscape and installed Mozilla and all was fine. I said you need not register it. The following page describes how to get rid of the "Activation" Screen. http://www.hmetzger.de/net6e.html#4 -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
Netscape Basher wrote: > Which validates my statement. Do not download 6.2.1 until the next release. You are posting in the wrong newsgroup. This one is about the Mozilla project. The only reason the name begins with "netscape" is that Netscape was so kind to donate disk space and bandwidth for the Mozilla newsgroups. This newsgroup has nothing to do with Netscape 6. Try one of the following: snews://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.netscape6.windows snews://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.netscape6.unix snews://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.netscape6.macintosh /Jonas
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
Netscape Basher wrote: > Christian Biesinger typed: >> Bamm Gabriana wrote: >> > Having to register it? That is a big issue You don't have to register it. >>> >>> >>> >>> He's right on this one.[...] >>> So I uninstalled Netscape and installed Mozilla and all was fine. >> >> >> >> I said you need not register it. The following page describes how to >> get rid of the "Activation" Screen. >> >> http://www.hmetzger.de/net6e.html#4 >> > > That's a hack, not a solution. ARG! You have two possibilities: (actually, three) Either you do what I suggested, or you do register for Netcenter, or you close that window on every start of Netscape. > You are out of touch with the general internet community, as are most > Netscape champs and Mozilla developers. This specific feature has nothing to do with Mozilla developers. It is a Netscape only feature. I would guess that Netscape Marketing or something is to blame. And by the way: I don't care so much whether the Internet Community finds Mozilla a usable browser. I would much rather have a browser that I like myself. -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
Arg. OK. Let's continue flaming. Netscape Basher wrote: > Christian Biesinger typed: >> Netscape Basher wrote: >>> Abandonment of theme development on 6.2.1? Shitting on users >> Pardon?? You call it "shitting on users" providing five themes for a >> browser? > > Considering Netscape hasn't made single one available for months. Opera > gives dozens of themes. I didn't know that Opera supports themes... And, by the way, I just went to the Opera Home Page and was unable to find a single theme there. >>> Giving you a worthless version of Real Player? That is a big issue >> >> Which version does Netscape come with? >> >> But anyway, if you want a newer one, don't install the one distributed >> with Netscape, but get it from real.com. This is not at all a big issue. > > End users shouldn't have to do this and it is a big deal with modem > users, which are the majority of users. Personally, I find that RealPlayer 8 works with everything that I've tried. >>> Having to register it? That is a big issue >> You don't have to register it. > > Oh, and that lovely pop-up box is just there to please us? Click the "X" Button in the upper right corner. Or follow my suggestion from another posting. >>> And the fact it's been four years and STILL no 1.0 Mozilla version, >>> and the roadmap continues to be moved back. >> My personal guess is that 1.0 will be released in April, as the >> roadmap states. > > Go back and read the road map from two years ago. One year ago. > 0.9.9 is behind schedule. 0.9.9 is not behind schedule. The Roadmap only talks about an "ideal release". We will release it later. So what? Better release a better product later than a bad product now. And in any case it needs not affect the 1.0 release. >>> And the fact more bugs are being found than fixed. >> Most "new found bugs" are really either already known or requests for >> enhancements. > Not according to their own statistics. More bugs are being assigned than > fixed. I don't see a contradiction here. > Mozilla is not an end-product, it is a beta product, has been for four > years now. If Mozilla is a beta product, why is Netscape not? It's mostly the same code. -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
Christian Biesinger wrote: > And, by the way, I just went to the Opera Home Page and was unable to > find a single theme there. www.opera.com --> My Opera --> Customize /Jonas
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
> ARG! You have two possibilities: (actually, three) > Either you do what I suggested, or you do register for Netcenter, or you > close that window on every start of Netscape. I think "close that window on every start of Netscape" is bad advice. My friend definitely wouldn't want to close it everytime. Netscape implemented a bad idea and I hope you are not defending a bad idea. I can edit .js files, but my friend doesn't and I'm willing to bet more people do not even know they exist. Is it too much to ask for Netscape to be more sensitive? I know this is the wrong newsgroup to post to, but since the issue was opened up and since there are many Netscape employees here I think the point would be getting across.
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
> Which validates my statement. Do not download 6.2.1 until the next release. Exactly the point. We all agree with you here so there's no point bashing us on this. But the fact that NS621 sucks is no reason to hate Mozilla, since most of your complaints do not apply to Mozilla. It's like flooding the Microsoft newsgroups because you don't like Neoplanet's features! (Neoplanet is based on IE just like Netscape is based on Moz) FYI Mozilla 0.9.8 is way better than Netscape 6.2.1. and more stable than 0.9.7. I suggest you download it and see the difference.
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
Bamm Gabriana wrote: >>ARG! You have two possibilities: (actually, three) >>Either you do what I suggested, or you do register for Netcenter, or you >>close that window on every start of Netscape. > > I think "close that window on every start of Netscape" is > bad advice. > > My friend definitely wouldn't want to close it everytime. > Netscape implemented a bad idea and I hope you are not > defending a bad idea. From a user's standpoint it's definitely a bad idea. It annoys me to (so I have edited my prefs.js. Not that I use NS much (Mozilla usually), but anyway...). > I can edit .js files, but my friend > doesn't and I'm willing to bet more people do not even > know they exist. Those people will, I suppose, simply register. IIRC, that dialog pretty much looked like you have to register to use NS. > Is it too much to ask for Netscape to be more sensitive? Being no Netscape employee, I can't comment on that point. However, this _is_ a way for Netscape to make money, so I suppose this is the reason why they put it in. -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
Jonas Jørgensen wrote: > Christian Biesinger wrote: > >> And, by the way, I just went to the Opera Home Page and was unable to >> find a single theme there. > > > www.opera.com --> My Opera --> Customize Oh indeed, thanks for the link. Netscape Basher: These themes are not provided by Opera. Well, they mayb be provided by Opera, but not created by them. I suppose Opera itself has only created one theme, the default one, but of course this might not be true. -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
Christian Biesinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:3C89F76D.20600 @web.de, on 09 Mar 2002: > Every day a full version of Mozilla is made available. > Actually, looking at the ftp server it's more like 2 to 3 times a day a full version is made available -- AIM: FlyersR1 9 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ = m
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
Netscape Basher wrote: > Bamm Gabriana wrote: > >> This is a newsgroup for Mozilla, not Netscape. >> We don't care about AOL's shortcuts or spyware >> coz we don't have them. > > netscape.public.mozilla.general > > Then rename the group so it doesn't say Netscape in it. That's what we all want, so we don't have a bunch of people asking about Netscape Communicator in here. For what it's worth, the bug for the change is here: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62228 > Mozilla is a sinking ship anyhow. Since you've only used Netscape 6.2, which is based on a very old version of Mozilla, and have never used a recent milestone, how could you possibly be able to say one way or the other? Opinions founded on ignorance are worthless.
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
Garth Wallace wrote: > > Netscape Basher wrote: > > Bamm Gabriana wrote: > > > >> This is a newsgroup for Mozilla, not Netscape. > >> We don't care about AOL's shortcuts or spyware > >> coz we don't have them. > > > > netscape.public.mozilla.general > > > > Then rename the group so it doesn't say Netscape in it. > > That's what we all want, Everybody except AOL. > so we don't have a bunch of people asking about > Netscape Communicator in here. For what it's worth, the bug for the > change is here: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62228 > How many years has that bug been in there now Garth? At least for a while AOL was making up all kinds of excuses as to why this simple change wasn't going to be made, now they just ignore the cries in the wilderness. Who does number two work for? AOL, that's who. > > Mozilla is a sinking ship anyhow. > > Since you've only used Netscape 6.2, which is based on a very old > version of Mozilla, and have never used a recent milestone, how could > you possibly be able to say one way or the other? Opinions founded on > ignorance are worthless. As are those founded on self-delusion. This privacy-invasion BS is just what Mozilla didn't need.
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
>>Since you've only used Netscape 6.2, which is based on a very old >>version of Mozilla, and have never used a recent milestone, how could >>you possibly be able to say one way or the other? Opinions founded on >>ignorance are worthless. >> > > As are those founded on self-delusion. This privacy-invasion BS is just > what Mozilla didn't need. > I never Seen So Much Paranoia over nothing, netscape and mozilla nothing to complain about them. look at ie 6.0 thats really invasion of privacy its the worst when it comes to privacy. netscape 6.2.1 since to be outdated on cookie managment but does alot better than ie 6.0. the lastest mozilla does a hell alot better job than both, so i see nothing to grape about mozilla.
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
I never Seen So Much Paranoia over nothing, netscape and mozilla nothing to complain about them. look at ie 6.0 thats really invasion of privacy its the worst when it comes to privacy. netscape 6.2.1 since to be outdated on cookie managment but does alot better than ie 6.0. the lastest mozilla does a hell alot better job than both, so i see nothing to complain about mozilla.
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
And it came to pass that Netscape Basher wrote:
> Jonas Jørgensen typed:
>> Netscape Basher wrote:
>>
>>> Which validates my statement. Do not download 6.2.1 until
>>> the next release.
>>
>>
>> You are posting in the wrong newsgroup. This one is about
>> the Mozilla project. The only reason the name begins with
>> "netscape" is that Netscape was so kind to donate disk
>> space and bandwidth for the Mozilla newsgroups.
>
> totally False. Netscape has nothing to do with the bandwidth
> on this newsgroup. It is not hosted by Netscape, it is
> hosted by 100's of newsgroup servers around the world. It is
> a general usenet forum, just like the 10,000s of others.
>
> Now the ones on secnews.netscape.com are hosted by Netscape
> and do use their bandwith and resources.
>
>
> This newsgroup has nothing to do with Netscape 6. Try one of
>> the following:
>>
>> snews://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.netscape6.windows
>> snews://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.netscape6.unix
>> snews://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.netscape6.macintosh
>>
>> /Jonas
>
> And then they will claim only technical information is
> supposed to be posted there. Which is fair because on those
> groups, Netscape does provide the bandwidth.
>
Those are the Netscape6 peer support groups - while technical
data is not unwelcome, those groups are intended to provide
users with answers and information to help them to fully realize
their Netscape experience.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
If you can't convince them, confuse them. (Harry S. Truman)
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
On Fri, 08 Mar 2002 23:35:25 GMT esteemed Netscape Basher did hold forth thusly: Well Basher Bundy, my suggestion is that you don't use NS 6.21 and stop complaining about it. I think Moz is maturing very nicely. Since about Moz v0.97 I've found it is a better browser than IE 5.5 SP2. I'd try IE 6.0 but people tell me its slower and less reliable and so I'll wait till MS does fixes to that major release. Each Moz point rev keeps getting faster and better. It runs for weeks on end with no crash. I really like the tabs. I really like "What's Related" as a way to find new and interesting sites. I also like the way one can configure which search engine to use and then type in a search pattern and hit Search. So for me this is a very satisfying browser and I'm thrilled by its progress.
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
Christian Biesinger wrote: > I said you need not register it. The following page describes how to get > rid of the "Activation" Screen. > > http://www.hmetzger.de/net6e.html#4 The activation occurrs *during* the installation. How do you delete activation.dll, or edit all-ns.js *before* you install? The solution you (and Holger Metzger) provide doesn't seem possible for someon who just downloaded N6Setup.exe. :( -- Regards, Peter Lairo
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
Garth Wallace wrote: > Since you've only used Netscape 6.2, which is based on a very old > version of Mozilla, and have never used a recent milestone, how could > you possibly be able to say one way or the other? Opinions founded on > ignorance are worthless. > Please, be careful Mr. Wallace. Kyle (Netscape Basher) is using "User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:0.9.9+) Gecko/20020307" -- /P.M.
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
> > As are those founded on self-delusion. This privacy-invasion BS is just > what Mozilla didn't need. > But JTK, Mozilla does not have this "feature" so what are you complaining?? Only Netscape has it, as proved by others.
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
On 03/09/2002 6:06 PM, Netscape Basher wrote: > And then they will claim only technical information is supposed to be > posted there. Which is fair because on those groups, Netscape does > provide the bandwidth. > > Netscape has nothing to do with running this newsgroup. > > > > Again, you knoweth not of the FACTS !!! This server is a PRIVATE server located in Mountain View Ca. and is owned by Netscape and administrated by a Netscape manager (Markus). Things may have changed since I last spoke with Markus but that's it as far as I know for now. I suggest you read up on how news server software works. By way of preferences in the software, the sysnewsadmin can choose to accept/post "public/usenet" feed or not. The Secure News Server (secnews) is hosted on this box as well and does NOT accept usenet feed. Over-simplified explanation but will do for the moment. Please Kyle, get your facts in order. Bashing Netscape/Mozilla is one thing and is perfectly acceptable under certain conditions such as appending your "bashing" with useful feedback, suggestions, bug reports, feature enhancement requests, knowledgeable discussion, etc . The old saying "It's better to keep your mouth shut and let everyone think you're an idiot/fool than to open it and remove all the doubt" is quite apropos. -- Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion Novell MCNE-5/CNI-Networking Technologies-OSI UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
On 03/09/2002 6:16 PM, Netscape Basher wrote: > > And Netscape 6 was supposed to provide dozens of users added themes. > What happened? Netscape pulled the plug on it. > > That is Netscape shitting on its users. > Not the same as Mozilla. > Again, you have no concept or either you refuse to understand the process. Netscape 6.2.1 is based on the VERY OLD Mozilla 0.9.4.1. Themes that work in 6.2.1 may NOT work in a future build. Therefore, why waste programming time and effort into something that may or may not work. Same goes for Mozilla. Themes that worked in the 0.9.8 release may NOT work in the 0.9.9 release and subsequent 1.0 release. So, why waste the time/effort until such time as there is conformity as relates to theme programming. No Kyle, Mozilla/Netscape is not dumping on users, you're dumping on Mozilla/Netscape with unfounded allegations based on rumor and malicious intent based on a failure to comprehend the process. -- Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion Novell MCNE-5/CNI-Networking Technologies-OSI UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
On 03/10/2002 2:56 AM, Peter Lairo wrote: > The activation occurrs *during* the installation. How do you delete > activation.dll, or edit all-ns.js *before* you install? > > The solution you (and Holger Metzger) provide doesn't seem possible for > someon who just downloaded N6Setup.exe. :( > I don't think there is a way to do this before the profile is created and user-data is migrated. I've never tried it but can you interrupt the installation process between the copying of files and the migration process ??? If so, then you may be able to rename the .dll file and/or edit the .js file .. dunno, never tried it. You can of course proceed up to the point of "Activation" and then cancel it. Then you can rename the .dll file or edit the .js file. -- Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion Novell MCNE-5/CNI-Networking Technologies-OSI UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
Jay Garcia wrote: > On 03/10/2002 2:56 AM, Peter Lairo wrote: > You can of course proceed up to the point of "Activation" and then > cancel it. Then you can rename the .dll file or edit the .js file. What a (unsatisfactory) hack! :( -- Regards, Peter Lairo
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
Jay Garcia wrote: > On 03/09/2002 6:06 PM, Netscape Basher wrote: >>Netscape has nothing to do with running this newsgroup. > This server is a PRIVATE server located in Mountain View Ca. Say, which server are you talking about? For example, the server I am using to post here is located in Berlin, Germany. This newsgroup is also available from other newsservers beside secnews.netscape.com and news.mozilla.org. -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
Peter Lairo wrote: > The activation occurrs *during* the installation. How do you delete > activation.dll, or edit all-ns.js *before* you install? Last time I used Netscape, it occured when I started Netscape after I have installed it. Was this different for you? -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
Netscape Basher wrote: > Christian Biesinger typed: >> Personally, I find that RealPlayer 8 works with everything that I've >> tried. > > Wait until you find a site that will tell you have to update your > player. Netscape should be giving it's customers the lastest stuff. I didn't bother searching the web just to find a file that didn't work. [activation] >> Click the "X" Button in the upper right corner. >> Or follow my suggestion from another posting. > > And it comes back the next time you start. Unless you follow the suggestion from another posting. > Go back and read the road map from two years ago, one year ago. Mozilla is on schedule. The roadmap has always talked about "ideal releases" or, in earlier versions, "if we are lucky". > It's behind schedule. By the time they release a good product, it will > be out of date... again Eh, I don't see a relation between these two statements. Mozilla is continuously developed, so it will not be out of date even if it's behind schedule. -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
> Netscape 6.2.1 is based on the VERY OLD Mozilla 0.9.4.1. Themes that > work in 6.2.1 may NOT work in a future build. Therefore, why waste > programming time and effort into something that may or may not work. > Same goes for Mozilla. Themes that worked in the 0.9.8 release may NOT > work in the 0.9.9 release and subsequent 1.0 release. So, why waste the > time/effort until such time as there is conformity as relates to theme > programming. You may add, starting with version 1.0, theme creation will be forward-compatible because of the API freeze. I believe Netscape is just waiting for this so it can start developing themes again.
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
I'm not totally "facted-up" on how usernet hierarchies work, but if someone like Netscape sets itself up as some sort of original source of information for a newsgroup (ie. the main/final repository), then doesn't that mean that they have to ensure that enough high-availability disk space + bandwidth is available, regardless of which other downstream server feeds are pushing it to users like you & me? Those numbers might pale in comparison to what the collective usenet servers of the world might be providing, but its presumably still significant for open-source efforts like that of Mozilla. sTu. Netscape Basher wrote: > Jay Garcia typed: > >> On 03/09/2002 6:06 PM, Netscape Basher wrote: >> >> >>> And then they will claim only technical information is supposed to be >>> posted there. Which is fair because on those groups, Netscape does >>> provide the bandwidth. >>> >>> Netscape has nothing to do with running this newsgroup. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> Again, you knoweth not of the FACTS !!! >> >> This server is a PRIVATE server located in Mountain View Ca. and is >> owned by Netscape and administrated by a Netscape manager (Markus). >> Things may have changed since I last spoke with Markus but that's it as >> far as I know for now. > > > False. All the bandwith used by me in this newsgroup is from Road > Runner- Columbia,SC . You just happen to be using the secnews.netscape > to access this group, but you can access through 100's of newsgroup > servers, even google. If you would learn to read headers, you would > figure this out. > > http://groups.google.com/groups?q=netscape.public.mozilla.general > > If secnews.netscape stopped carrying this group, only those who read it > through secnews.netscape would be affected while everyone else would > continue to receive this group. If you read the headers from me, you > will not see any reference to a netscape *news server* at all. Jay this > is about the fourth for fifth dishonest statement you have made. I am > frankly getting sick and tired of it and it's people like you that > ensure Netscape/Mozilla will continue to fail by giving out false > information. > > You know nothing about how usenet works. Stick to something you know a > little bit about, like Mozilla. > >> >> I suggest you read up on how news server software works. By way of >> preferences in the software, the sysnewsadmin can choose to accept/post >> "public/usenet" feed or not. The Secure News Server (secnews) is hosted >> on this box as well and does NOT accept usenet feed. Over-simplified >> explanation but will do for the moment. > > > Yup and if the sys newsadmin of secure news server stopped the group, it > will would still be carried by 100's of others newsservers. > > To say the bandwith from this group is from Netscape is totally false > unless you are accessing only from the Secure News Server from Netscape. > > >> >> Please Kyle, get your facts in order. Bashing Netscape/Mozilla is one >> thing and is perfectly acceptable under certain conditions such as >> appending your "bashing" with useful feedback, suggestions, bug reports, >> feature enhancement requests, knowledgeable discussion, etc . > > > you have already proven you know nothing about usenet. Your statement > that Netscape supplies all the bandwith for this group is totally false. > Ask any newsgroup admin this. > > Just like your dishonest statement to that user who wanted to know how > to respond on the top of a reply and your answer was not to show them > how but dictate they should never do it. It's an option on Netscape. > > It is your job if you are claiming to help people to answer the > question, not imply your will on people. It seems you agenda goes much > further than that. > > -- > Kyle >
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
And it came to pass that Netscape Basher wrote:
> Jay Garcia typed:
>> On 03/09/2002 6:06 PM, Netscape Basher wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And then they will claim only technical information is
>>>supposed to be posted there. Which is fair because on those
>>>groups, Netscape does provide the bandwidth.
>>>
>>>Netscape has nothing to do with running this newsgroup.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Again, you knoweth not of the FACTS !!!
>>
>> This server is a PRIVATE server located in Mountain View
>> Ca. and is owned by Netscape and administrated by a
>> Netscape manager (Markus). Things may have changed since I
>> last spoke with Markus but that's it as far as I know for
>> now.
>
> False. All the bandwith used by me in this newsgroup is
> from Road Runner- Columbia,SC . You just happen to be using
> the secnews.netscape to access this group, but you can
> access through 100's of newsgroup servers, even google. If
> you would learn to read headers, you would figure this out.
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=netscape.public.mozilla.gen
> eral
>
> If secnews.netscape stopped carrying this group, only those
> who read it through secnews.netscape would be affected while
> everyone else would continue to receive this group. If you
> read the headers from me, you will not see any reference to
> a netscape *news server* at all. Jay this is about the
> fourth for fifth dishonest statement you have made. I am
> frankly getting sick and tired of it and it's people like
> you that ensure Netscape/Mozilla will continue to fail by
> giving out false information.
>
It's only dishonest if he knows it's wrong: YOU're being
fundamentally dishonest by failing to distinguish between
"mistaken" and "dishonest".
Jay made a mistake; you on the other hand have displayed an
appalling lack of integrity.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
I've learned that 99% of the time when something isn't working
in your
house, one of your kids did it
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
And it came to pass that Netscape Basher wrote:
> Christian Biesinger typed:
>> Jay Garcia wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/09/2002 6:06 PM, Netscape Basher wrote:
>>>
Netscape has nothing to do with running this newsgroup.
>>>
>>> This server is a PRIVATE server located in Mountain View
>>> Ca.
>>
>>
>> Say, which server are you talking about?
>>
>> For example, the server I am using to post here is located
>> in Berlin, Germany. This newsgroup is also available from
>> other newsservers beside secnews.netscape.com and
>> news.mozilla.org.
>>
>
> it is available from 100's of servers. Jay is confused on
> how usenet works.
>
> If the group was only available from secnews.netscape.com
> or/and news.mozilla.org, Jay would have a point. But he
> doesn't.
Jay is used to dealing exclusively with thesecure newsgroups on
the secnews server, which is NOT part of usenet. He may well be
fully unaware that the mozilla groups, based on the same
physical server, are not similarly secured.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
I've learned that 99% of the time when something isn't working
in your
house, one of your kids did it
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
On 03/10/2002 10:17 AM, Christian Biesinger wrote: > Jay Garcia wrote: >> On 03/09/2002 6:06 PM, Netscape Basher wrote: >>>Netscape has nothing to do with running this newsgroup. >> This server is a PRIVATE server located in Mountain View Ca. > > Say, which server are you talking about? > > For example, the server I am using to post here is located in Berlin, > Germany. This newsgroup is also available from other newsservers beside > secnews.netscape.com and news.mozilla.org. > I'm speaking of the physical location of the server. -- Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion Novell MCNE-5/CNI-Networking Technologies-OSI UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
On 03/10/2002 10:41 AM, Bamm Gabriana wrote: >> Netscape 6.2.1 is based on the VERY OLD Mozilla 0.9.4.1. Themes that >> work in 6.2.1 may NOT work in a future build. Therefore, why waste >> programming time and effort into something that may or may not work. >> Same goes for Mozilla. Themes that worked in the 0.9.8 release may NOT >> work in the 0.9.9 release and subsequent 1.0 release. So, why waste the >> time/effort until such time as there is conformity as relates to theme >> programming. > > You may add, starting with version 1.0, theme creation will be > forward-compatible because of the API freeze. I believe Netscape > is just waiting for this so it can start developing themes again. > > > Thanks for reminding me of that. I knew there was something missing in my statement. -- Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion Novell MCNE-5/CNI-Networking Technologies-OSI UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
On 03/10/2002 5:23 PM, Netscape Basher wrote: > Jay Garcia typed: >> On 03/09/2002 6:06 PM, Netscape Basher wrote: >> >> >>>And then they will claim only technical information is supposed to be >>>posted there. Which is fair because on those groups, Netscape does >>>provide the bandwidth. >>> >>>Netscape has nothing to do with running this newsgroup. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> Again, you knoweth not of the FACTS !!! >> >> This server is a PRIVATE server located in Mountain View Ca. and is >> owned by Netscape and administrated by a Netscape manager (Markus). >> Things may have changed since I last spoke with Markus but that's it as >> far as I know for now. > > False. All the bandwith used by me in this newsgroup is from Road > Runner- Columbia,SC . You just happen to be using the secnews.netscape > to access this group, but you can access through 100's of newsgroup > servers, even google. If you would learn to read headers, you would > figure this out. > > http://groups.google.com/groups?q=netscape.public.mozilla.general > > If secnews.netscape stopped carrying this group, only those who read it > through secnews.netscape would be affected while everyone else would > continue to receive this group. If you read the headers from me, you > will not see any reference to a netscape *news server* at all. Jay this > is about the fourth for fifth dishonest statement you have made. I am > frankly getting sick and tired of it and it's people like you that > ensure Netscape/Mozilla will continue to fail by giving out false > information. > > You know nothing about how usenet works. Stick to something you know a > little bit about, like Mozilla. > >> >> I suggest you read up on how news server software works. By way of >> preferences in the software, the sysnewsadmin can choose to accept/post >> "public/usenet" feed or not. The Secure News Server (secnews) is hosted >> on this box as well and does NOT accept usenet feed. Over-simplified >> explanation but will do for the moment. > > Yup and if the sys newsadmin of secure news server stopped the group, it > will would still be carried by 100's of others newsservers. > > To say the bandwith from this group is from Netscape is totally false > unless you are accessing only from the Secure News Server from Netscape. > > >> >> Please Kyle, get your facts in order. Bashing Netscape/Mozilla is one >> thing and is perfectly acceptable under certain conditions such as >> appending your "bashing" with useful feedback, suggestions, bug reports, >> feature enhancement requests, knowledgeable discussion, etc . > > you have already proven you know nothing about usenet. Your statement > that Netscape supplies all the bandwith for this group is totally false. > Ask any newsgroup admin this. > > Just like your dishonest statement to that user who wanted to know how > to respond on the top of a reply and your answer was not to show them > how but dictate they should never do it. It's an option on Netscape. > > It is your job if you are claiming to help people to answer the > question, not imply your will on people. It seems you agenda goes much > further than that. > > -- > Kyle > Geeze, you're still not understanding the facts, Kyle. Where in my statement/reply did I say ANYthing about supplying or using bandwidth ?? My statement/reply was in reference to the physical location of the server that hosts these groups. It's in Mountain View California and this SERVER feeds usenet. Again, learn the facts especically before you level personal attacks which by the way I don't appreciate but rather considering the source doesn't make a hill of beans one way or the other. Also, when I access THIS group/server, I'm on port 119 not 563 (secure). The NEWS.MOZILLA.ORG group is not on port 563 (secure). Maybe you don't understand just exactly what a "secure" or "non-secure" server is. Are you under the mistaken impression that the "physical" server is "secure" or "non-secure" ??? Do you realize that both secure and non-secure sofware is run on the SAME physical server Have you ever accessed a web site via HTTP and HTTPS ??? One is secure (SSL) and the other isn't but they both run on the same physical server Facts Kyle, FACTS !! Learn 'em well. You're posting among big guns here with only a cap pistol. Either contribute something useful or leave. If you really want to learn, we'll teach you. Also, to clarify your allegation that I was not honest in my reply about the top-posting, I emailed the poster about it and he was not offended and took my reply in jest, just as it was meant. -- Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion Novell MCNE-5/CNI-Networking Technologies-OSI UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
Peter Lairo wrote: > Christian Biesinger wrote: > >> I said you need not register it. The following page describes how to >> get rid of the "Activation" Screen. >> >> http://www.hmetzger.de/net6e.html#4 > > > The activation occurrs *during* the installation. How do you delete > activation.dll, or edit all-ns.js *before* you install? > > The solution you (and Holger Metzger) provide doesn't seem possible for > someon who just downloaded N6Setup.exe. :( > why do you care, you can just hit the cancel buttons to get out of activation and it will go away forever.. -dman84
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
This is almost not worth posting, but if you check the full header this newsgroup is hosted at "secnews.netscape". End of argument! Jay Garcia wrote: > On 03/09/2002 6:06 PM, Netscape Basher wrote: > > >>And then they will claim only technical information is supposed to be >>posted there. Which is fair because on those groups, Netscape does >>provide the bandwidth. >> >>Netscape has nothing to do with running this newsgroup. >> >> >> >> > > > Again, you knoweth not of the FACTS !!! > > This server is a PRIVATE server located in Mountain View Ca. and is > owned by Netscape and administrated by a Netscape manager (Markus). > Things may have changed since I last spoke with Markus but that's it as > far as I know for now. > > I suggest you read up on how news server software works. By way of > preferences in the software, the sysnewsadmin can choose to accept/post > "public/usenet" feed or not. The Secure News Server (secnews) is hosted > on this box as well and does NOT accept usenet feed. Over-simplified > explanation but will do for the moment. > > Please Kyle, get your facts in order. Bashing Netscape/Mozilla is one > thing and is perfectly acceptable under certain conditions such as > appending your "bashing" with useful feedback, suggestions, bug reports, > feature enhancement requests, knowledgeable discussion, etc . > > The old saying "It's better to keep your mouth shut and let everyone > think you're an idiot/fool than to open it and remove all the doubt" is > quite apropos. >
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
Basher, No one is complaining that you do not recomend NS 6.2.1. What people are complaining about is the way you said it. You came across as a basher. To paraphrase: "There is nothing good about NS 6.2.1. Now if you had simply said "Wait for the next version of Netscape, or download Mozilla becuse Mozilla has progressed much further than Netscape 6.2.1" you might not have upset so many people. You cam across as a flamer. You might watch how you word your posts, unless you did intend to flame this newsgroup. Netscape Basher wrote: > Bamm Gabriana typed: > >>> Which validates my statement. Do not download 6.2.1 until the next >> >> >> release. >> >> Exactly the point. We all agree with you here so there's no >> point bashing us on this. But the fact that NS621 sucks is >> no reason to hate Mozilla, since most of your complaints >> do not apply to Mozilla. > > > If I hated Mozilla so much, I wouldn't be using it. Again, it's the > direction that Mozilla is going to that I hate, not so much the product. > >> >> It's like flooding the Microsoft newsgroups because you >> don't like Neoplanet's features! (Neoplanet is based on >> IE just like Netscape is based on Moz) > > > If there is a group with the name Microsoft and Neoplanet in it and I > got complaints I would post them. This group has the name of Netscape > and Mozilla in it. If you want Moz to be seperate it is not hard to > start groups called. alt.mozilla.general > >> >> FYI Mozilla 0.9.8 is way better than Netscape 6.2.1. >> and more stable than 0.9.7. >> >> I suggest you download it and see the difference. > > > Read what I am posting with. > Mozilla .9.8 build 2002030703 > > That gives me every right to complain about the product. > > -- > Kyle >
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
On 03/10/2002 10:55 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > This is almost not worth posting, but if you check the full header this > newsgroup is hosted at "secnews.netscape". End of argument! Yup, end of argument. This group is hosted on secnews.netscape.com on port 119 (unsecure). The name of the server is irrelevant. bye Jay -- Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion Novell MCNE-5/CNI-Networking Technologies-OSI UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
> it is available from 100's of servers. Jay is confused on how usenet works. > > If the group was only available from secnews.netscape.com or/and > news.mozilla.org, Jay would have a point. But he doesn't. Hello, A newsgroup may be carried by hundreds of servers, but only one server can host it. Hosting means the messages are physically located in the server. Almost all news servers carry the netscape* newsgroups, but its host is secnews.netscape.com. Hope this helps. Bamm
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
> I AM fully aware of how all this works. Kyle is confused by SERVER and > SERVER SOFTWARE !! No, he is confused between hosting a newsgroup and carrying the newsgroup. Jay, I hope you cool down. You are a highly intellectual person but your behavior has been worse than him. We expect more from you. Have a nice day. Regards, Bamm
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
dman84 wrote: > Peter Lairo wrote: > >> Christian Biesinger wrote: >> >>> I said you need not register it. The following page describes how to >>> get rid of the "Activation" Screen. >>> >>> http://www.hmetzger.de/net6e.html#4 >> >> >> >> The activation occurrs *during* the installation. How do you delete >> activation.dll, or edit all-ns.js *before* you install? >> >> The solution you (and Holger Metzger) provide doesn't seem possible >> for someon who just downloaded N6Setup.exe. :( >> > > why do you care, you can just hit the cancel buttons to get out of > activation and it will go away forever.. > > -dman84 > sorry, that was kinda harsh.. I meant to just say that you dont have to go around removing code like a Hack when you can just hit the cancel buttons to get out of activation.. -dman84
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
On 03/11/2002 12:39 AM, Bamm Gabriana wrote: >> I AM fully aware of how all this works. Kyle is confused by SERVER and >> SERVER SOFTWARE !! > > No, he is confused between hosting a newsgroup > and carrying the newsgroup. > > Jay, I hope you cool down. You are a highly intellectual > person but your behavior has been worse than him. We > expect more from you. Have a nice day. > > Regards, > Bamm > You're absolutely correct, I'm the "demon from hell" !! Have a nice day and thanks for the support. -- Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion Novell MCNE-5/CNI-Networking Technologies-OSI UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
dman84 wrote: > sorry, that was kinda harsh.. I meant to just say that you dont have to > go around removing code like a Hack when you can just hit the cancel > buttons to get out of activation.. Last time I checked, this was not possible. -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
Jay Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My statement/reply was in reference to the physical location of the > server that hosts these groups. It's in Mountain View California and > this SERVER feeds usenet. A newsgroup isn't hosted on a specific host. A mail-to-news gateway may be, but that is a different matter. There may be an organisation that is in charge of a usenet name space, like netscape.* but to call that `hosting it on a server' seems only to confuse. People in this discussion seem to think a usenet group has 'upstream' and 'downstream'. It doesn't. The propagation algorithm is flood based and not hierarchical. There's no authoritative server + echos/mirrors/etc., it is a peer-to- peer protocol. Bottom line, if Netscape's server disappeared then the news groups could continue to exist, though the people who used the Netscape server to access them would have to find a new one. That would include users of a mail gateway. None of this applies to newsgroups that are hosted on one machine only and not shared with the rest of Usenet. This doesn't apply to the mozilla newsgroups. -- 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: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
Holger Metzger wrote: > Christian Biesinger wrote: > >>dman84 wrote: >> >>>sorry, that was kinda harsh.. I meant to just say that you dont have to >>>go around removing code like a Hack when you can just hit the cancel >>>buttons to get out of activation.. >> >>Last time I checked, this was not possible. > > > Well, sometimes it works to just hit cancel, for some people. > > In my experience it never has been enough to hit cancel. The problem is > also the way Netscape 6.xx takes over any old NC 4.x profile: it's done > *without* asking the user first. Highly annoying. That's why you can't > avoid the activation screen, it pops up at least once, right after you > installed Netscape 6. > > - Holger I remember there is a dialog that came up that I hit cancel two times.. It had done alright when it converted my nc4.75 mail but then I backed up my new netscape 6.1 profile at the time .. and then I deleted nc4.75 and formatted the drive.. I then only installed ns 6.1 again.. and I had my mail.. there.. it didn't bother with nc4.75, because it somehow knows about the registry.dat file settings.. upon activation I clicked cancel, then when the dialog comes up, click cancel on that.. that should close part of the activate upon startup. Its been some time since I've done this, it asks if you wanna create account using an AIM or something else userID, and you can select either option and create a new one, used for buddyAIM and then I think it may create a webmail login for this, I dont know for sure the order or the correct facts on this, but I remember parts of these things.. they are all part of the activation processes. I think if you haven't converted a NC 4.7x profile yet.. wait till the new netscape release hits.. it should be better at profile conversion. -dman84
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
> sorry, that was kinda harsh.. I meant to just say that you dont have to > go around removing code like a Hack when you can just hit the cancel > buttons to get out of activation.. Try installing Netscape 6 in a computer without an internet connection like I did in my friend's computer (in anticipation of her signing up with an ISP). Every time I open Netscape 6 the activation screen pops up. I just cancel everytime. Worse was when the Quick Launch option was enabled. The activation screen pops up everytime Windows starts! How very annoying indeed. Regards, Bamm
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
On 03/11/2002 8:39 AM, Erik Corry wrote: > Jay Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> My statement/reply was in reference to the physical location of the >> server that hosts these groups. It's in Mountain View California and >> this SERVER feeds usenet. > > A newsgroup isn't hosted on a specific host. It is on this one. This is a "private" server that feeds to usenet. > A mail-to-news gateway may be, but that is a different matter. > > There may be an organisation that is in charge of a usenet > name space, like netscape.* but to call that `hosting it on > a server' seems only to confuse. See above > People in this discussion seem to think a usenet group has > 'upstream' and 'downstream'. It doesn't. The propagation > algorithm is flood based and not hierarchical. There's no > authoritative server + echos/mirrors/etc., it is a peer-to- > peer protocol. Correct, but this isn't "usenet". It "feeds" to usenet. > Bottom line, if Netscape's server disappeared then the news > groups could continue to exist, though the people who used > the Netscape server to access them would have to find a new > one. That would include users of a mail gateway. > > None of this applies to newsgroups that are hosted on one > machine only and not shared with the rest of Usenet. This > doesn't apply to the mozilla newsgroups. > When I discussed this with Markus Bauer, the news sysadmin at Netscape, the way I understand it is not the way you present it. I could be wrong but I don't think so since I'm relying totally on his explanation. I know what usenet is and how it works as I've been in this business since 1990 but have never hosted a private news server before. I've always leased from uunet. Also, according to your're explanation, if we list groups from our ISP, then these very same groups should appear. They don't ... Why not? It's "usenet" isn't it? -- Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion Novell MCNE-5/CNI-Networking Technologies-OSI UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
Jay Garcia wrote: > Also, according to your're explanation, if we list groups from our ISP, > then these very same groups should appear. They don't ... Why not? It's > "usenet" isn't it? If you are talking about netscape.public.mozilla.* when you say "the very same groups", I can confirm that my newsserver (news.cis.dfn.de) does have them. My ISP's newsserver (news.chello.at) does also have them, I just noticed. -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
Christian Biesinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jay Garcia wrote: >> Also, according to your're explanation, if we list groups from our ISP, >> then these very same groups should appear. They don't ... Why not? It's >> "usenet" isn't it? Probably your ISP doesn't carry the netscape.* groups. I'm sure they would if someone complained about it. This is the question of the netscape.* Usenet name space, and who gets to control it. If your ISP accepts netscape.* groups and accepts newgroup commands from Netscape then it works like any other part of 'Usenet'. > If you are talking about netscape.public.mozilla.* when you say "the > very same groups", I can confirm that my newsserver (news.cis.dfn.de) > does have them. > My ISP's newsserver (news.chello.at) does also have them, I just noticed. Yup, and your message passed through the following machines on the way to me (reverse order): news.net.uni-c.dk!howland.erols.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!212.186.200 .128!not-for-mail Note that netscape.com is not there, so I would have got it even if netscape.com had been off then net. Works with the same technology as the rest of Usenet, even if it's not part of Usenet according to some big7-plus-alt definition of Usenet. -- 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: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
On 03/11/2002 3:30 PM, Erik Corry wrote: > Christian Biesinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Jay Garcia wrote: >>> Also, according to your're explanation, if we list groups from our ISP, >>> then these very same groups should appear. They don't ... Why not? It's >>> "usenet" isn't it? > > Probably your ISP doesn't carry the netscape.* groups. I'm sure > they would if someone complained about it. This is the question > of the netscape.* Usenet name space, and who gets to control it. > If your ISP accepts netscape.* groups and accepts newgroup commands > from Netscape then it works like any other part of 'Usenet'. > >> If you are talking about netscape.public.mozilla.* when you say "the >> very same groups", I can confirm that my newsserver (news.cis.dfn.de) >> does have them. >> My ISP's newsserver (news.chello.at) does also have them, I just noticed. > > Yup, and your message passed through the following machines on > the way to me (reverse order): > > news.net.uni-c.dk!howland.erols.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!212.186.200 > .128!not-for-mail > > Note that netscape.com is not there, so I would have got it even > if netscape.com had been off then net. > > Works with the same technology as the rest of Usenet, even if > it's not part of Usenet according to some big7-plus-alt > definition of Usenet. > Yes, thanks for the confirmation. Just as I thought, the secnews server that hosts netscape.public.*.* does a "usenet" FEED !!! -- Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion Novell MCNE-5/CNI-Networking Technologies-OSI UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
Jay Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 03/11/2002 3:30 PM, Erik Corry wrote: >> Christian Biesinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Jay Garcia wrote: Also, according to your're explanation, if we list groups from our ISP, then these very same groups should appear. They don't ... Why not? It's "usenet" isn't it? >> >> Probably your ISP doesn't carry the netscape.* groups. I'm sure >> they would if someone complained about it. This is the question >> of the netscape.* Usenet name space, and who gets to control it. >> If your ISP accepts netscape.* groups and accepts newgroup commands >> from Netscape then it works like any other part of 'Usenet'. >> >>> If you are talking about netscape.public.mozilla.* when you say "the >>> very same groups", I can confirm that my newsserver (news.cis.dfn.de) >>> does have them. >>> My ISP's newsserver (news.chello.at) does also have them, I just noticed. >> >> Yup, and your message passed through the following machines on >> the way to me (reverse order): >> >> news.net.uni-c.dk!howland.erols.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!212.186.200 >> .128!not-for-mail >> >> Note that netscape.com is not there, so I would have got it even >> if netscape.com had been off then net. >> >> Works with the same technology as the rest of Usenet, even if >> it's not part of Usenet according to some big7-plus-alt >> definition of Usenet. > Yes, thanks for the confirmation. There was no confirmation that I was aware of. I don't think you understood what I wrote. > Just as I thought, the secnews server > that hosts netscape.public.*.* does a "usenet" FEED !!! What do you mean by a feed? It feeds those who use it. Others can use their own Usenet server. Like I wrote, the secnews server doesn't appear to have a critical role in the netscape.public.* groups. Not that it matters. -- 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: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
On 03/12/2002 5:23 AM, Erik Corry wrote: >> Yes, thanks for the confirmation. > > There was no confirmation that I was aware of. I don't think you > understood what I wrote. I understood exactly what you wrote. You are reading this group from your ISP's news feed or other feed OTHER than logging into the physical server hosting this group. >> Just as I thought, the secnews server >> that hosts netscape.public.*.* does a "usenet" FEED !!! > > What do you mean by a feed? I am logged in to news.mozilla.org which is hosted on a PHYSICAL server housed at Netscape corporate headquarters located in Mountain View, Ca. When I post to this group, the server "feeds" it to "usenet" as well as mailing lists, etc. And this is how YOU read it. > It feeds those who use it. Others can use their own Usenet server. > Like I wrote, the secnews server doesn't appear to have a critical > role in the netscape.public.* groups. Exactly, this is what you "confirmed". I have since subscribed to this same group on my ISP's news feed at COX.NET I didn't realize that they carried it until recently as I've been using the server at Netscape for years. I'll reply to this reply using COX's feed and we'll see what's different in the header info. I'm curious as well. -- Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion Novell MCNE-5/CNI-Networking Technologies-OSI UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
On 03/12/2002 7:35 AM, Jay Garcia wrote: > I'll reply to this reply using COX's feed and we'll see what's different > in the header info. I'm curious as well. The reply I mentioned was done at approximately 7:37 CST on the COX group. Still waiting to see it here at 7:50 am CST which should prove something about usenet "feed" and the propagation time, etc . This reply should be seen immediately upon refreshing the group while logged in to THE server. -- Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion Novell MCNE-5/CNI-Networking Technologies-OSI UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
On 03/12/2002 7:52 AM, Jay Garcia wrote: > > This reply should be seen immediately upon refreshing the group while > logged in to THE server. It is, as witnessed by the posted time of this reply. -- Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion Novell MCNE-5/CNI-Networking Technologies-OSI UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
Bamm Gabriana wrote: >>>Having to register it? That is a big issue >> >>You don't have to register it. > > > He's right on this one. I tried to install Netscape 6.2.1 on my > friend's new computer. Netscape will not open the first time > until you sign up with a Netcenter account. But my friend > could not sign up because she has no internet connection > yet. Result: the activation page won't go away. > > So I uninstalled Netscape and installed Mozilla and all was fine. > > Bamm :) > > > I installed Netscape 6.2 (perhaps 6.2.1 is different?) on someone's computer and did not register with netcenter. They do _not_ get a registration window each time NS6.2 is started. If I remeber correctly this is what happened: The prompt for registration has three choices 'yes', 'no', and 'cancel' I chose 'cancel' The registration window closed, and hasn't come back since. However, I believe if I had chosen 'no', the registration would keep coming back. Hope this helps, Dean
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
Bamm Gabriana wrote: >>sorry, that was kinda harsh.. I meant to just say that you dont have to >>go around removing code like a Hack when you can just hit the cancel >>buttons to get out of activation.. > > > Try installing Netscape 6 in a computer without an internet connection > like I did in my friend's computer (in anticipation of her signing up with > an ISP). Every time I open Netscape 6 the activation screen pops up. > I just cancel everytime. > > Worse was when the Quick Launch option was enabled. The activation > screen pops up everytime Windows starts! How very annoying indeed. > > Regards, > Bamm > > > Oh yeah, I forgot about that. If you don't have an internet connection active, you can't press 'cancel' because the prompt won't display. Instead you get an error (something about not being able to connect). I guess one could temporarily use an alternate browser until signed up on an isp, but I guess you shouldn't have to do that. On my installation, the quick launch option was unchecked, and I would have had to intentionally check it. Again this was on NS6.2, and NS6.2.1 may be different. Dean
