Re: SM2 Slow Newsgroup Reader
On 12/24/2009 1:07 AM, Daniel wrote: Mark Hansen wrote: Hmmm, I show 43,739. I guess it depends on how many headers were downloaded when the group was initially subscribed? I always download all headers (as I have a connection that makes this easy). Interesting!! I've just set up this new laptop in the past fortnight or so, and for the four groups I check on this server, I downloaded all the headers and this group, now, about six weeks after Marks post, is only showing as 38943 messages!! Is it because the news server has removed some of the older posts, such that if you get a new list today, it will not go back as far as the list I downloaded some time ago? When I view all messages in the group, the first header I see is: Welcome to mozilla.support.seamonkey, posted by Dave Miller on 1/9/2006. Interestingly, the first response to that post was from you :-) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: off line view of web sites
»Q« wrote: Innews:kkqdnzy5qeknu6_wnz2dnuvz_gudn...@mozilla.org, n...@homen...@home.net wrote: I like to have access to certain web sites when I am remotely situated, without internet access. I was happy using Scrapbook with earlier versions of SM, but as I updated SM (I am at v 2.0.1 now) Scrapbook has disappeared. When I go to their site they list compatibility with Firefox, but say nothing about SM. Try Philip Chee's modified version at http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modified.html#scrapbook. Note that you also need his xSidebar extension installed. Philip hangs out here, in case you run into any trouble. Thanks. I couldn't find the xsidebar extension, but when I downloaded the scrapbook file it went ahead and installed, so either I unknowingly had the xsidebar extension, or it is automatically loaded with the scrapbook version. Now I'm off to find some sites to copy for our next trip. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: off line view of web sites
Danny Kile wrote: n...@home wrote: I like to have access to certain web sites when I am remotely situated, without internet access. I was happy using Scrapbook with earlier versions of SM, but as I updated SM (I am at v 2.0.1 now) Scrapbook has disappeared. When I go to their site they list compatibility with Firefox, but say nothing about SM. Would such a program that is compatible with Firefox also work with SM? If not, what is a good method to capture some websites so I can use the information on them when I am away from the Internet? My technical abilities are limited. I use a program called Local Website Archive. I install it on a flash drive and carry it in my pocket. That way I have it wherever I go and on any PC that has a USB port You can get it here: http://www.aignes.com/lwa.htm Danny, Thanks. I downloaded the program but haven't installed it yet as I'm going to try the sidebar first, since I have worked with it before and won't have to be trained. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Happens every Year .
Merry Xmas to all ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Happens every Year .
NoOp wrote: On 12/24/2009 12:32 PM, question wrote: Merry Xmas to all In the USA there is a template for this: To My Democrat Friends: Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2010, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere. Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, familiar status, or sexual orientation of the wished. To My Republican Friends: Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! :-) Happy Holidays to all :-) Merry Christmas, everyone! And a Happy-Happy once we get there. -- - Rufus ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Happens every Year .
question wrote: Merry Xmas to all And to all a Good night! -- Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.If it's Fixed, Don't Break it http://www.phillipmjones.net http://www.vpea.org mailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: off line view of web sites
Danny Kile wrote: Phillip Jones wrote: JeffM wrote: Danny Kile wrote: I use a program called Local Website Archive. http://www.aignes.com/lwa.htm I find it fascinating that the website for a company in that business doesn't pass muster: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.aignes.com/lwa.htm 5 Errors Compare: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modified.html Who says that Company Web Designers (whether in house or paid) pay one whit attention about W3C specifications. Granted the ones the are here have had it hammered in their head. I'd be very surprised if MS, Adobe, Intuit if you were check theirs would be. 5 error is not a heck of a lot. On my own site I've spent literally months (not every day and not every minute) re working mine to be W#C compliant to at least XML (XHTML) 1.0. Transitional spec. And I still not sure I've go everything. I checked Mocrosoft.com, cnn.com, tvguide.com, weather.com, adobe.com and uweather.com thet all had hundreds of errors. All their site seem to work just fine, so much for validator. I did mozilla.org and it was the only site that passed. Danny I hope everyone doesn't take my post the wrong way. I am all for the W3C standards. I wish every website was 100 Compliant even those from MS. (which they don't, or didn't for a long time, so that only people that used IE could view their content.) But realities are I would be surprised most profession and non Pro web designers never heard of W3C. -- Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.If it's Fixed, Don't Break it http://www.phillipmjones.net http://www.vpea.org mailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: SeaMonkey 2.0.1 won't print emails
Peter wrote: SeaMonkey 2.0.1 won't print emails, or anything. Can anyone help please?.. http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=40t=1661975start=0 Thank you. Peter works for me -- Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.If it's Fixed, Don't Break it http://www.phillipmjones.net http://www.vpea.org mailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Bizarre behavior in 2.0.1 mailnews
Bill Davidsen schrieb: When I am reading mail/news in 1.1.18, the header pane scroll indicator can be used to move the view up or down. If I middle click in the scroll region the indicator and display move to that spot. Useful so I can move around. In 2.0.1 the same action opens a tab instead of scrolling. Note: no I am *not* clicking on the article header by accident, that's a useful behavior. The only way to get the previous behavior is to shift-click, which requires use of both hands, more time, etc.I can't find any benefit at all from this behavior and regard it as a regression from 1.1.xx interface. I do have middleclick opens in new tab, that's a browser thing, and should not apply to the scrollbar! why would you middle-click instead of a normal click? -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - http://www.asciiribbon.org/index-de.html ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: off line view of web sites
On 12/24/2009 9:35 AM, Danny Kile wrote: Phillip Jones wrote: JeffM wrote: Danny Kile wrote: I use a program called Local Website Archive. http://www.aignes.com/lwa.htm I find it fascinating that the website for a company in that business doesn't pass muster: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.aignes.com/lwa.htm 5 Errors Compare: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modified.html Who says that Company Web Designers (whether in house or paid) pay one whit attention about W3C specifications. Granted the ones the are here have had it hammered in their head. I'd be very surprised if MS, Adobe, Intuit if you were check theirs would be. 5 error is not a heck of a lot. On my own site I've spent literally months (not every day and not every minute) re working mine to be W#C compliant to at least XML (XHTML) 1.0. Transitional spec. And I still not sure I've go everything. I checked Mocrosoft.com, cnn.com, tvguide.com, weather.com, adobe.com and uweather.com thet all had hundreds of errors. All their site seem to work just fine, so much for validator. I did mozilla.org and it was the only site that passed. Danny So much for validator? The validator checks to see if the code that makes up the HTML/CSS is correct. If it's not correct, it generates a validation warning/error. If it's not correct, it's not correct. There are no two way about this. The fact that a web site appears to function correctly doesn't mean the HTML/CSS has no problems. Some problems can be big and some can be small. Some will affect only certain browsers, some will affect only certain parts of the application, etc. Are you really saying that if the site appears to work to your standards even with validation errors, that the validator has no value? ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Unable to import seamonkey 1.x to Seamonkey 2.0
ad...@mmri.us schrieb: Does this mean that, it is eventually the end of all 1.x mail? What about all my filters? Stored Passwords? etc I use this in a corporate environment and it is going to be very painful to tell everyone that this is now the end of their email and they will have to completely start from scratch setting up everything.# In a corporate environment users usually don't set up their clients theirselves o_0 have you ever tried migrating on several machines? Thousands of users (icluding me) have migrated successfully I doubt it will fail for all on your side. And if so, something is seriously borked on all systems and it should be the same cause everywhere. regards Martin -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - http://www.asciiribbon.org/index-de.html ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: off line view of web sites
n...@home schrieb: Thanks. I couldn't find the xsidebar extension, but when I downloaded the scrapbook file it went ahead and installed, so either I unknowingly had the xsidebar extension, or it is automatically loaded with the scrapbook version. Now I'm off to find some sites to copy for our next trip. afaik xsidebar was made for SM1, probably some functionality is built in into SM2. btw: you can see which extensions are installed in the AddOn-Manager. regards Martin -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - http://www.asciiribbon.org/index-de.html ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Printout Password Manager Entries?
Tom schrieb: I have entries in Password Manager since 1999 and many are no longer used and there are many duplicates. In order to prune out old entries, I'd like to be able to print out all of the entries. Is there any way to do this with some kind hex editor? Use Password Exporter Extension: http://code.google.com/p/passwordexporter/ It may be required to set extensions.CheckCompatibility to false in about:config to install. regards Martin -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - http://www.asciiribbon.org/index-de.html ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: off line view of web sites
Mark Hansen wrote: On 12/24/2009 9:35 AM, Danny Kile wrote: Phillip Jones wrote: JeffM wrote: Danny Kile wrote: I use a program called Local Website Archive. http://www.aignes.com/lwa.htm I find it fascinating that the website for a company in that business doesn't pass muster: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.aignes.com/lwa.htm 5 Errors Compare: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modified.html Who says that Company Web Designers (whether in house or paid) pay one whit attention about W3C specifications. Granted the ones the are here have had it hammered in their head. I'd be very surprised if MS, Adobe, Intuit if you were check theirs would be. 5 error is not a heck of a lot. On my own site I've spent literally months (not every day and not every minute) re working mine to be W#C compliant to at least XML (XHTML) 1.0. Transitional spec. And I still not sure I've go everything. I checked Mocrosoft.com, cnn.com, tvguide.com, weather.com, adobe.com and uweather.com thet all had hundreds of errors. All their site seem to work just fine, so much for validator. I did mozilla.org and it was the only site that passed. Danny So much for validator? The validator checks to see if the code that makes up the HTML/CSS is correct. If it's not correct, it generates a validation warning/error. If it's not correct, it's not correct. There are no two way about this. The fact that a web site appears to function correctly doesn't mean the HTML/CSS has no problems. Some problems can be big and some can be small. Some will affect only certain browsers, some will affect only certain parts of the application, etc. Are you really saying that if the site appears to work to your standards even with validation errors, that the validator has no value? The validator is good for people that know about and want to check to see how well they have written their code. So that they know it will work with *Any* Browser. However, There are many don't even know about W3C let a lone about the validator. Many professionals. For example Adobe's Forums have moved from WebX to Jive ClearSpace. and talk about a train wreck. there is no way that is even remotely validates with the validator. -- Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.If it's Fixed, Don't Break it http://www.phillipmjones.net http://www.vpea.org mailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: off line view of web sites
On 12/24/2009 2:37 PM, Mark Hansen wrote: On 12/24/2009 9:35 AM, Danny Kile wrote: Phillip Jones wrote: JeffM wrote: Danny Kile wrote: I use a program called Local Website Archive. http://www.aignes.com/lwa.htm I find it fascinating that the website for a company in that business doesn't pass muster: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.aignes.com/lwa.htm 5 Errors Compare: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modified.html Who says that Company Web Designers (whether in house or paid) pay one whit attention about W3C specifications. Granted the ones the are here have had it hammered in their head. I'd be very surprised if MS, Adobe, Intuit if you were check theirs would be. 5 error is not a heck of a lot. On my own site I've spent literally months (not every day and not every minute) re working mine to be W#C compliant to at least XML (XHTML) 1.0. Transitional spec. And I still not sure I've go everything. I checked Mocrosoft.com, cnn.com, tvguide.com, weather.com, adobe.com and uweather.com thet all had hundreds of errors. All their site seem to work just fine, so much for validator. I did mozilla.org and it was the only site that passed. Danny So much for validator? The validator checks to see if the code that makes up the HTML/CSS is correct. If it's not correct, it generates a validation warning/error. If it's not correct, it's not correct. There are no two way about this. The fact that a web site appears to function correctly doesn't mean the HTML/CSS has no problems. Some problems can be big and some can be small. Some will affect only certain browsers, some will affect only certain parts of the application, etc. Are you really saying that if the site appears to work to your standards even with validation errors, that the validator has no value? Some Web pages cannot be appropriately displayed by Gecko browsers. Although Gecko browsers might possibly now hold a greater share of the market than IE, there are still Web authors using Micro$oft tools to create pages. When complaining to the site's owner (who is not necessarily the author), citing the W3C specifications and the number of errors found by W3C validators can provide excellent support for the complaint. Errors found by the validator might indicate that the site is inaccessible to the handicapped. If the Web site is based in the U.S. and is commercial, such inaccessibility violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); this too is excellent support for the complaint. If the site is owned by a U.S. federal agency, inaccessibility means the site violates Section 508 of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act of 1986 (as amended in 1998), also excellent support for the complaint. From my personal experience, it is not necessary to prove that the Web site is actually inaccessible to the handicapped and violates either the ADA or Rehabilitation Act of 1986; I have obtained corrective action merely by suggesting there might be violations. There is another aspect to the W3C validators, both the HTML/XHTML validator and the CSS validator. When someone complains that there is a bug in Firefox or SeaMonkey because the browser fails to render a Web page appropriately, the complaint is easily dismissed when the validators find errors in the page. After all, garbage in does indeed often result in garbage out. (NOTE: When I say appropriately, I mean as the Web author intended.) -- David E. Ross http://www.rossde.com/ Go to Mozdev at http://www.mozdev.org/ for quick access to extensions for Firefox, Thunderbird, SeaMonkey, and other Mozilla-related applications. You can access Mozdev much more quickly than you can Mozilla Add-Ons. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: SM2.0.1 and extensions
David E. Ross wrote: On 12/23/2009 7:47 PM, Leonidas Jones wrote: NoOp wrote: On 12/23/2009 07:18 PM, Leonidas Jones wrote: ... I've got PrefBar 4.3.1 installed and running fine. Lightning is an older nightly, I'll try installing the beta release and see how it works. Forms history also updated for me to 1.1.4. SM 2.0.1 haas yet to crash since I installed it, on two machines. Lee Build identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.6) Gecko/20091206 Lightning/1.0b1 SeaMonkey/2.0.1 Prefbar 4.3.2 No issues. I updated both Prefbar and Lightning, so far so good but small sample size. Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.6) Gecko/20091206 Lightning/1.0b1 Mnenhy/0.7.6.0 SeaMonkey/2.0.1 With Prefbar 4.3.2. Phillp, try here for the Lightning rc: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/calendar/lightning/releases/1.0b1rc1/mac/ Lee Is it possibly a Mac-specific issue? That is, is it possible that some of the extensions don't work right on a Mac? I have the following: * Adblock Plus 1.1.2 (http://adblockplus.org/) * Flashblock 1.3.15 (http://flashblock.mozdev.org/) * PrefBar 4.3.1 (http://prefbar.mozdev.org/) * Show Password On Input 0.1.3 (https://addons.mozilla.org/thunderbird /addon/6143/) plus some that came automatically with SeaMonkey. These are all running okay on my PC with Windows XP SP2 and Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.6) Gecko/20091206 SeaMonkey/2.0.1 I plan to install PrefBar 4.3.2 tonight. I really can't say all I know is since I removed Prefbar and Lightning I have been crash free. and with them installed I was crashing about every 10 minutes. I sent reports on 3 of them and used my email address. -- Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.If it's Fixed, Don't Break it http://www.phillipmjones.net http://www.vpea.org mailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: off line view of web sites
Mark Hansen wrote: On 12/24/2009 9:35 AM, Danny Kile wrote: Phillip Jones wrote: JeffM wrote: Danny Kile wrote: I use a program called Local Website Archive. http://www.aignes.com/lwa.htm I find it fascinating that the website for a company in that business doesn't pass muster: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.aignes.com/lwa.htm 5 Errors Compare: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modified.html Who says that Company Web Designers (whether in house or paid) pay one whit attention about W3C specifications. Granted the ones the are here have had it hammered in their head. I'd be very surprised if MS, Adobe, Intuit if you were check theirs would be. 5 error is not a heck of a lot. On my own site I've spent literally months (not every day and not every minute) re working mine to be W#C compliant to at least XML (XHTML) 1.0. Transitional spec. And I still not sure I've go everything. I checked Mocrosoft.com, cnn.com, tvguide.com, weather.com, adobe.com and uweather.com thet all had hundreds of errors. All their site seem to work just fine, so much for validator. I did mozilla.org and it was the only site that passed. Danny So much for validator? The validator checks to see if the code that makes up the HTML/CSS is correct. If it's not correct, it generates a validation warning/error. If it's not correct, it's not correct. There are no two way about this. The fact that a web site appears to function correctly doesn't mean the HTML/CSS has no problems. Some problems can be big and some can be small. Some will affect only certain browsers, some will affect only certain parts of the application, etc. Are you really saying that if the site appears to work to your standards even with validation errors, that the validator has no value? I am saying there are always more that one way to do the same thing no matter what you are doing. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: SM2.0.1 and extensions
Phillip Jones wrote: David E. Ross wrote: On 12/23/2009 7:47 PM, Leonidas Jones wrote: NoOp wrote: On 12/23/2009 07:18 PM, Leonidas Jones wrote: ... I've got PrefBar 4.3.1 installed and running fine. Lightning is an older nightly, I'll try installing the beta release and see how it works. Forms history also updated for me to 1.1.4. SM 2.0.1 haas yet to crash since I installed it, on two machines. Lee Build identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.6) Gecko/20091206 Lightning/1.0b1 SeaMonkey/2.0.1 Prefbar 4.3.2 No issues. I updated both Prefbar and Lightning, so far so good but small sample size. Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.6) Gecko/20091206 Lightning/1.0b1 Mnenhy/0.7.6.0 SeaMonkey/2.0.1 With Prefbar 4.3.2. Phillp, try here for the Lightning rc: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/calendar/lightning/releases/1.0b1rc1/mac/ Lee Is it possibly a Mac-specific issue? That is, is it possible that some of the extensions don't work right on a Mac? I have the following: * Adblock Plus 1.1.2 (http://adblockplus.org/) * Flashblock 1.3.15 (http://flashblock.mozdev.org/) * PrefBar 4.3.1 (http://prefbar.mozdev.org/) * Show Password On Input 0.1.3 (https://addons.mozilla.org/thunderbird /addon/6143/) plus some that came automatically with SeaMonkey. These are all running okay on my PC with Windows XP SP2 and Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.6) Gecko/20091206 SeaMonkey/2.0.1 I plan to install PrefBar 4.3.2 tonight. I really can't say all I know is since I removed Prefbar and Lightning I have been crash free. and with them installed I was crashing about every 10 minutes. I sent reports on 3 of them and used my email address. Try creating a test profile, and install Prefbar and Lightning, then the others, one by one and test. I have all those extensions and remain crash free. Lee ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: SM2.0.1 and extensions
Leonidas Jones wrote: NoOp wrote: On 12/23/2009 07:18 PM, Leonidas Jones wrote: ... I've got PrefBar 4.3.1 installed and running fine. Lightning is an older nightly, I'll try installing the beta release and see how it works. Forms history also updated for me to 1.1.4. SM 2.0.1 haas yet to crash since I installed it, on two machines. Lee Build identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.6) Gecko/20091206 Lightning/1.0b1 SeaMonkey/2.0.1 Prefbar 4.3.2 No issues. I updated both Prefbar and Lightning, so far so good but small sample size. Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.6) Gecko/20091206 Lightning/1.0b1 Mnenhy/0.7.6.0 SeaMonkey/2.0.1 With Prefbar 4.3.2. Phillp, try here for the Lightning rc: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/calendar/lightning/releases/1.0b1rc1/mac/ Lee I don't thinnk do. I am running all the extensions Phillip listed, and Lightning and Prefbar. I updated to the latest versions, and no problems at all so far. SeaMonkey 2.0.1 has yet to crash since ai installed it. Lee ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: SM2.0.1 and extensions
On 12/24/2009 03:33 PM, Phillip Jones wrote: David E. Ross wrote: On 12/23/2009 7:47 PM, Leonidas Jones wrote: NoOp wrote: On 12/23/2009 07:18 PM, Leonidas Jones wrote: ... I've got PrefBar 4.3.1 installed and running fine. Lightning is an older nightly, I'll try installing the beta release and see how it works. Forms history also updated for me to 1.1.4. SM 2.0.1 haas yet to crash since I installed it, on two machines. Lee Build identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.6) Gecko/20091206 Lightning/1.0b1 SeaMonkey/2.0.1 Prefbar 4.3.2 No issues. I updated both Prefbar and Lightning, so far so good but small sample size. Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.6) Gecko/20091206 Lightning/1.0b1 Mnenhy/0.7.6.0 SeaMonkey/2.0.1 With Prefbar 4.3.2. Phillp, try here for the Lightning rc: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/calendar/lightning/releases/1.0b1rc1/mac/ Lee Is it possibly a Mac-specific issue? That is, is it possible that some of the extensions don't work right on a Mac? I have the following: * Adblock Plus 1.1.2 (http://adblockplus.org/) * Flashblock 1.3.15 (http://flashblock.mozdev.org/) * PrefBar 4.3.1 (http://prefbar.mozdev.org/) * Show Password On Input 0.1.3 (https://addons.mozilla.org/thunderbird /addon/6143/) plus some that came automatically with SeaMonkey. These are all running okay on my PC with Windows XP SP2 and Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.6) Gecko/20091206 SeaMonkey/2.0.1 I plan to install PrefBar 4.3.2 tonight. I really can't say all I know is since I removed Prefbar and Lightning I have been crash free. and with them installed I was crashing about every 10 minutes. I sent reports on 3 of them and used my email address. What are the report links? about:crashes Right click on the crash ID and post the link(s). Sample: http://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/bp-be19f3ef-123e-437f-b503-8ba142091001 ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Happens every Year .
On 12/24/2009 04:09 PM, Daniel wrote: NoOp wrote: On 12/24/2009 12:32 PM, question wrote: Merry Xmas to all In the USA there is a template for this: To My Democrat Friends: Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2010, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere. Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, familiar status, or sexual orientation of the wished. To My Republican Friends: Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! :-) Happy Holidays to all :-) celebration of the winter solsticedoesn't that give undue emphasis to the Druids?? That does indeed! I shall file a bug report for that, and the fact the other political parties (Independents et al) were left out of the template; or more to the point perphaps that political parties were mentioned at all! Good catch - thanks :-) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: SM2.0.1 and extensions
On 12/24/2009 05:18 PM, Phillip Jones wrote: NoOp wrote: ... I really can't say all I know is since I removed Prefbar and Lightning I have been crash free. and with them installed I was crashing about every 10 minutes. I sent reports on 3 of them and used my email address. What are the report links? about:crashes Right click on the crash ID and post the link(s). Sample: http://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/bp-be19f3ef-123e-437f-b503-8ba142091001 http://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/bp-408f3ae8-02ec-464f-ac54-1965a2091224 http://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/bp-dc4f783f-3fe1-4926-81ca-9c3372091223 http://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/bp-68e79e92-f679-47b9-a0bc-54c9f2091223 http://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/bp-68e79e92-f679-47b9-a0bc-54c9f2091223 This last one is from when I installed 2.0 gold to replace 2.0 RC2 I dismissed several without reporting. I see that you were running a pre RC of lighting (1.0b2pre), can you try the one that David suggested instead? ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/calendar/lightning/releases/1.0b1rc1/mac/ Let's see if that was the problem. Then, can you just try the most recent prefbar (4.3.2)? It would be nice to try and determine which may have been the issue. I also notice that you have another '0.3' extension - can you clarify as to what that one is? ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
