Re: [newbie] Browsers
On Wednesday 20 August 2003 01:13 am, HaywireMac wrote: On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 00:56:44 -0400 Brant Fitzsimmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] uttered: Doesn't Mozilla support 128 bit encryption? I was almost sure it did by default. David, what are you encountering when you try to connect to the bank's website? I though that it supported it by default also. The last time I logged onto the bank (a week or so ago) everything was alright. Last night I got: Unsupported Browser To provide maximum security and protection, Bank of America requires that you use a browser that supports 128-bit encryption. We have determined that you are using Microsoft Internet Explorer Version msie5.5. In order to use Online Banking, you will need to use or download another browser. You can download a new browser for free from either the Netscape or Microsoft. For your convenience click on the appropriate link below to download a web browser. Once you have installed the new browser you'll be ready to use Online Banking. Please note: Bank of America does not recommend the use of beta or test browsers with Online Banking. Go to download Netscape Go to download Microsoft Internet Explorer More information about browsers. : I have no idea why this has started all of a sudden.. David -- ( )_( ) ( o o ) ---( )--- ---0--- They told me to install Windows 98 or better, so I installed Linux. Registered Linux user #300497 Registered Linux Machine #197634 Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Browsers
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 07:05:19 -0400 David [EMAIL PROTECTED] uttered: I though that it supported it by default also. The last time I logged onto the bank (a week or so ago) everything was alright. Last night I got: Unsupported Browser I'll bet you dollars to donuts it has nothing whatever to do with the encryption. They just only want peeps usin MSIE. I got the same from my ISP (see post above). Don't bother with their customer service flunkies, go straight to the top, and tell them it worked fine b4, now it's broken, and they better FIX it. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Browsers
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 07:05:19 -0400, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I though that it supported it by default also. The last time I logged onto the bank (a week or so ago) everything was alright. Last night I got: Unsupported Browser To provide maximum security and protection, Bank of America requires that you use a browser that supports 128-bit encryption. I use Mozilla for online banking at Bank of America--no problem whatsoever. I just tried it again a minute ago. Miark Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Browsers
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 23:25, Miark wrote: On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 07:05:19 -0400, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I though that it supported it by default also. The last time I logged onto the bank (a week or so ago) everything was alright. Last night I got: Unsupported Browser To provide maximum security and protection, Bank of America requires that you use a browser that supports 128-bit encryption. I use Mozilla for online banking at Bank of America--no problem whatsoever. I just tried it again a minute ago. Miark Good - next time you try, try to transfer some funds my way. -- Wed Aug 20 23:45:00 EST 2003 23:45:00 up 3 days, 2:11, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.04, 0.06 - |____ | illawarra computer services| | /-oo /| |'-. | http://kma.0catch.com | | .\__/ || | | || | _ / `._ \|_|_.-' | stephen kuhn | | | / \__.`=._) (_ | email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | - linux user #:267497 linux machine #:194239 * MDK 9.1+ RH 9 Mandrake Linux Kernel 2.4.21-11mdk Cooker for i586 - * This message was composed on a 100% Microsoft free computer * It's hard to think of you as the end result of millions of years of evolution. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Browsers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi David, On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 07:05:19 -0400, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote about Re: [newbie] Browsers: I though that it supported it by default also. The last time I logged onto the bank (a week or so ago) everything was alright. Last night I got: Unsupported Browser To provide maximum security and protection, Bank of America requires that you use a browser that supports 128-bit encryption. We have determined that you are using Microsoft Internet Explorer Version msie5.5. If you use Konqueror web browser you can set (per site) your Browser identification as being any version of MSIE 4.1 and up. Moreover Konqueror supports upto 256 bit encryption. I visit microsoft.com to get windows updates for my children and ms is fooled by the setting, so I am pretty sure BoA will be fooled just the same. HTH Regards, =Dick Gevers= -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3rc2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Encryption is an envelope - the contents are private. iD8DBQE/Q30jwC/zk+cxEdMRAtpWAJ9Hd8/4f623f3sKTwjB0KFWeDWt4gCgjY2W FmDdZ7rM62wwuUImxPSViAg= =6k7O -END PGP SIGNATURE- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Browsers
On Wednesday 20 August 2003 09:52 am, Dick Gevers wrote: If you use Konqueror web browser you can set (per site) your Browser identification as being any version of MSIE 4.1 and up. Moreover Konqueror supports upto 256 bit encryption. I visit microsoft.com to get windows updates for my children and ms is fooled by the setting, so I am pretty sure BoA will be fooled just the same. I get the same message with Konq. David -- ( )_( ) ( o o ) ---( )--- ---0--- They told me to install Windows 98 or better, so I installed Linux. Registered Linux user #300497 Registered Linux Machine #197634 Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Browsers
David wrote: All of a sudden, I am getting a requirement from my bank that I use a browser that supports 128 bit encryption. I am using Mozilla 1.4. Is there something in a user.js or a pref.js file that I can force the issue? David Doesn't Mozilla support 128 bit encryption? -- Brant Fitzsimmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Linux user #322847 | Linux machine #207465 | http://counter.li.org/ AMD Duron 1.3GHz | Mandrake 9.1 | Kernel 2.4.21-0.25mdkcustom KDE 3.1.3 | Mozilla 1.4 Mail Client ___ All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. -Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Browsers
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 00:56:44 -0400 Brant Fitzsimmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] uttered: Doesn't Mozilla support 128 bit encryption? I was almost sure it did by default. David, what are you encountering when you try to connect to the bank's website? Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Browsers
In a message dated 10/18/2000 7:27:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hey! Wadda u mean, Larry? You get to BUY betas to test with Micro$oft! And then buy it again (it's now "the product") and do it again! Why buy the same product only once? Capitalism to the extreme [the wrong extreme that is]. -Gary- Wait a minute there Gary---I thought Micsrosoft only sold Beta software! --Greg Stewart, MCP :-) 10/20 They DO. That's the point. But you knew that. -Gary- In a message dated 10/18/2000 12:13:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One of the things I see regularly is people's unfamiliarity with beta-test software, both in terms of expectations and interpretations. I guess it is pretty unique for most people working in Windows to see true beta-apps with all their trace code, dead code, etc. still hanging inside them. With Windows you get to beta-test after you buy it and the bloat there is more a matter of programming taste than anything else.
Re: [newbie] Browsers
In a message dated 10/18/2000 12:25:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One of the things I see regularly is people's unfamiliarity with beta-test software, both in terms of expectations and interpretations. I guess it is pretty unique for most people working in Windows to see true beta-apps with all their trace code, dead code, etc. still hanging inside them. With Windows you get to beta-test after you buy it and the bloat there is more a matter of programming taste than anything else. Hey! Wadda u mean, Larry? You get to BUY betas to test with Micro$oft! And then buy it again (it's now "the product") and do it again! Why buy the same product only once? Capitalism to the extreme [the wrong extreme that is]. -Gary- I think I said that Gary. But what seems to get to people coming from a world of commercial-only software is that there are real reasons why code in development should run more poorly than it would if all the extra code was removed. Rather than saying to themselves, "Oh...this is beta, I expect it to be slow and big" they say "Ooo yuck, this is a horrible program; it's slow and big." Maybe all Linux beta software should be released with the statement "This is a beta; it will be slow and big. We're just trying to make you Windows users feel at home." :-) Cheers --- Larry Larry, Once again I argree with you. Both in the buying the same software twice and with the notion of buying test betas. And though it might seem dumb, a lot of people don't know just what a beta is and some kind of blatant message is also a good idea. -Gary-
Re: [newbie] Browsers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/18/2000 12:25:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One of the things I see regularly is people's unfamiliarity with beta-test software, both in terms of expectations and interpretations. I guess it is pretty unique for most people working in Windows to see true Larry, Once again I argree with you. Both in the buying the same software twice and with the notion of buying test betas. And though it might seem dumb, a lot of people don't know just what a beta is and some kind of blatant message is also a good idea. -Gary- Not to change the subject back to what started all of this, but, I pulled up Mozilla and did not initiate the mail feature, just started browsing. It reacted considerably faster than before. When I started mail the browser immediately slowed down to where it would take 20 seconds to a minute or more to load a web page. The fonts etc are so much better than the Netscape fonts (which I can not get to change) that I think I will use Mozilla to browse and Netscape for mail, until I can figure out how to get Kmail to work without crashing. So to make a long story short, Larry was right the mail feature is the goo that slows everything down. -- Dennis M. a registered Linux User #180842
Re: [newbie] Browsers
Dennis Myers wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/18/2000 12:25:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, much better than the Netscape fonts (which I can not get to change) that I think I will use Mozilla to browse and Netscape for mail, until I can figure out how to get Kmail to work without crashing. So to make a long story short, Larry was right the mail feature is the goo that slows everything down. Along those lines, I took advice given here and upgraded Netscape 4.73 to 4.75 and it seems to be well worth the small effort involved as it's made Netscape much more stable if the past 24h is any indication. Cheers --- Larry
RE: [newbie] Browsers
Title: RE: [newbie] Browsers I had tried the tar file on Opera and got a dump due to unexpected EOF. So that didn't work for me. And I do understand that beta may load slower but what I am seeing is after it loads and is running, if I change screens to go to say mail it takes about 5 times longer to bring up the mail screen, same thing in doing changes of URLs or any move in an existing screen. Is that common with a beta? It's like my computer has gone into slow motion. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Larry Marshall Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 10:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [newbie] Browsers I have d/l'd Opera, Netscape 6, and Mozilla and find that I can not install Opera due to wrong architecture, and the other two flow like If you want to try this, download the tar file instead. I dont know what's going on with their rpms but you've bumped into what's a common problem there. molasses in January. They are so slow to load anything that I feel like I have timewarped back to the good old dos days and booting with floppys Haven't wasted my time with NS6.0. It's true that Mozilla loads slowly. Truthfully, most betas will load more slowly (often by a lot) than true releases as they're bloated with developer code. On the other hand, who cares when it comes to a browser. Load it, stick into one of your windows and leave it there. one found the fix for the wrong architecture thingy in Opera? I have See above. are twitchy and crash frequently. I hope that the final releases are better for speed in Linux than what I see now, or have I missed One of the things I see regularly is people's unfamiliarity with beta-test software, both in terms of expectations and interpretations. I guess it is pretty unique for most people working in Windows to see true beta-apps with all their trace code, dead code, etc. still hanging inside them. With Windows you get to beta-test after you buy it and the bloat there is more a matter of programming taste than anything else. something in the install? Linux makes everything but the mozilla prog run faster so something is amiss. Only your interpretation and expectations of beta software. Cheers --- Larry
RE: [newbie] Browsers
I had tried the tar file on Opera and got a dump due to unexpected EOF. So that didn't work for me. And I do understand that beta may load slower but what I am seeing is after it loads and is running, if I change screens to go to say "mail" it takes about 5 times longer to bring up the mail screen, same thing in doing changes of URLs or any move in an existing screen. Is that common with a beta? It's like my computer has gone into slow motion. grin...oh...we're talking mail. Then I'll produce an even stronger view than youMail doesn't work in Mozilla. I also found (as you that if I opened a mail window everything ground to a halt on the browser side. That said, I'm downloading with it as I write this in Pine and it's working fine. I want to get the latest and greatest 7.2beta before I make my decision to switch back to Red Hat. Mandrake seems to be losing site of some things. Cheers --- Larry
Re: [newbie] Browsers
In a message dated 10/18/2000 12:13:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One of the things I see regularly is people's unfamiliarity with beta-test software, both in terms of expectations and interpretations. I guess it is pretty unique for most people working in Windows to see true beta-apps with all their trace code, dead code, etc. still hanging inside them. With Windows you get to beta-test after you buy it and the bloat there is more a matter of programming taste than anything else. Hey! Wadda u mean, Larry? You get to BUY betas to test with Micro$oft! And then buy it again (it's now "the product") and do it again! Why buy the same product only once? Capitalism to the extreme [the wrong extreme that is]. -Gary-
Re: [newbie] Browsers
Dennis Myers wrote: I have d/l'd Opera, Netscape 6, and Mozilla and find that I can not install Opera due to wrong architecture, and the other two flow like molasses in January. They are so slow to load anything that I feel like I have timewarped back to the good old dos days and booting with floppys etc. Anybody getting any better reaction from Net 6 or Moz? And has any one found the fix for the wrong architecture thingy in Opera? I have While I can understand the need of a GUI browser for some, I really do not find it important to fire of Netscape or Galeon when I am looking for info or downloading softwareThe lynx and its later version links(which I use with a great deal of comfort) are real great browsers.it would be great it some peeps started using it and stayed away from browsers - each of whom "create" "new" "standards". Have a nice day..
Re: [newbie] Browsers
One of the things I see regularly is people's unfamiliarity with beta-test software, both in terms of expectations and interpretations. I guess it is pretty unique for most people working in Windows to see true beta-apps with all their trace code, dead code, etc. still hanging inside them. With Windows you get to beta-test after you buy it and the bloat there is more a matter of programming taste than anything else. Hey! Wadda u mean, Larry? You get to BUY betas to test with Micro$oft! And then buy it again (it's now "the product") and do it again! Why buy the same product only once? Capitalism to the extreme [the wrong extreme that is]. -Gary- I think I said that Gary. But what seems to get to people coming from a world of commercial-only software is that there are real reasons why code in development should run more poorly than it would if all the extra code was removed. Rather than saying to themselves, "Oh...this is beta, I expect it to be slow and big" they say "Ooo yuck, this is a horrible program; it's slow and big." Maybe all Linux beta software should be released with the statement "This is a beta; it will be slow and big. We're just trying to make you Windows users feel at home." :-) Cheers --- Larry
Re: [newbie] Browsers
or downloading softwareThe lynx and its later version links(which I use with a great deal of comfort) are real great browsers.it would be great it some peeps started using it and stayed away from browsers - each of whom "create" "new" "standards". I'm a commandline junkie, preferring it to all other means for dealing with text. That said, I think there's a chink in the armour of the text-based browser idea. It is that there is a lot of stuff on the web that IS graphics...the information IS the picture(s). Given that, a text-based browser simply means you have to learn two. It forces you to deal with questions like "Which one do I have Pine call when I tap on a URL?" and other similar questions. I admit that I've spent only a couple hours running around, looking at the world through the eyes of Lynx. But with that limited background, I don't see much advantage to it over even Netscape, which I REALLY don't like. Bookmark use isn't nearly as fluid, the visuals that let you know where you are on sites aren't nearly as useful. It's like shopping at the mall while looking through a toilet paper roll in my view :-) I'm probably lost and bewildered though as I prefer Pine to everything else I've seen for email in Linux and spend more time in a konsole window than any other place except for my word process (and I'm not going back to a text markup language either). Cheers --- Larry
Re: [newbie] Browsers
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Dennis Myers wrote: I have d/l'd Opera, Netscape 6, and Mozilla and find that I can not install Opera due to wrong architecture, and the other two flow like molasses in January. They are so slow to load anything that I feel like I have timewarped back to the good old dos days and booting with floppys etc. Anybody getting any better reaction from Net 6 or Moz? And has any one found the fix for the wrong architecture thingy in Opera? I have tried opera and Mozilla in Win 98 and like both of them even though they are twitchy and crash frequently. I hope that the final releases are better for speed in Linux than what I see now, or have I missed something in the install? Linux makes everything but the mozilla prog run faster so something is amiss. -- Dennis M. a registered Linux User #180842 Not that I know of. Just download the tar.gz and install it. (the only thing it installs is the opera application) It works just fine on V7.1 (2.2.15 Kernel) -- D.M.(Mike) Mattix [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fwd: Re: [newbie] Browsers
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Dennis Myers wrote: I have d/l'd Opera, Netscape 6, and Mozilla and find that I can not install Opera due to wrong architecture, and the other two flow like molasses in January. They are so slow to load anything that I feel like I have timewarped back to the good old dos days and booting with floppys etc. Anybody getting any better reaction from Net 6 or Moz? And has any one found the fix for the wrong architecture thingy in Opera? I have tried opera and Mozilla in Win 98 and like both of them even though they are twitchy and crash frequently. I hope that the final releases are better for speed in Linux than what I see now, or have I missed something in the install? Linux makes everything but the mozilla prog run faster so something is amiss. -- Dennis M. a registered Linux User #180842 Not that I know of. Just download the tar.gz and install it. (the only thing it installs is the opera application) It works just fine on V7.1 (2.2.15 Kernel) -- D.M.(Mike) Mattix [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: [newbie] Browsers
"D.M. Mattix (Mike)" wrote: On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Dennis Myers wrote: I have d/l'd Opera, Netscape 6, and Mozilla and find that I can not install Opera due to wrong architecture, and the other two flow like molasses in January. They are so slow to load anything that I feel like I have timewarped back to the good old dos days and booting with floppys etc. Anybody getting any better reaction from Net 6 or Moz? And has any one found the fix for the wrong architecture thingy in Opera? I have tried opera and Mozilla in Win 98 and like both of them even though they are twitchy and crash frequently. I hope that the final releases are better for speed in Linux than what I see now, or have I missed something in the install? Linux makes everything but the mozilla prog run faster so something is amiss. -- Dennis M. a registered Linux User #180842 Not that I know of. Just download the tar.gz and install it. (the only thing it installs is the opera application) It works just fine on V7.1 (2.2.15 Kernel) -- D.M.(Mike) Mattix [EMAIL PROTECTED] That is exactly what I have 7.1 2.2.15 so what's up with my download, I have tried twice maybe a cleaning and re d/l, cause it sure won't install the way it is my having the wrong architecture and all. -- Dennis M. a registered Linux User #180842
Re: [newbie] Browsers
I have d/l'd Opera, Netscape 6, and Mozilla and find that I can not install Opera due to wrong architecture, and the other two flow like If you want to try this, download the tar file instead. I dont know what's going on with their rpms but you've bumped into what's a common problem there. molasses in January. They are so slow to load anything that I feel like I have timewarped back to the good old dos days and booting with floppys Haven't wasted my time with NS6.0. It's true that Mozilla loads slowly. Truthfully, most betas will load more slowly (often by a lot) than true releases as they're bloated with developer code. On the other hand, who cares when it comes to a browser. Load it, stick into one of your windows and leave it there. one found the fix for the wrong architecture thingy in Opera? I have See above. are twitchy and crash frequently. I hope that the final releases are better for speed in Linux than what I see now, or have I missed One of the things I see regularly is people's unfamiliarity with beta-test software, both in terms of expectations and interpretations. I guess it is pretty unique for most people working in Windows to see true beta-apps with all their trace code, dead code, etc. still hanging inside them. With Windows you get to beta-test after you buy it and the bloat there is more a matter of programming taste than anything else. something in the install? Linux makes everything but the mozilla prog run faster so something is amiss. Only your interpretation and expectations of beta software. Cheers --- Larry
Re: [newbie] Browsers
Dennis Myers escribió: I have d/l'd Opera, Netscape 6, and Mozilla and find that I can not install Opera due to wrong architecture Download the tarball. It's got an executable in it. , and the other two flow like molasses in January. I've just downloaded Mozilla M17 and it's a bit heavier and slower than Netscape 4.75... haven't tryed Netscape 6 -- Joan Tur. Ibiza - Spain [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ 11407395 Joan.Tur.pagina.de Club.Ibosim.pagina.de Linux: usuari registrat 190.783
