Stephen R Laniel wrote:
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 11:03:59AM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
Please quit top posting.
Here is a script that I banged out in a few minutes, which
surely needs much improvement but will hopefully go some way
toward making the top-posting debate -- which is
Steve Lamb wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
Steve Lamb wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
I think that has more to do with Opera marginalizing themselves by
expecting people to put up with *more* ads or pay for a web browser.
That has little to do with what the websites do with the user agent
string
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/26/07 14:53, Paul Johnson wrote:
Stephen R Laniel wrote:
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 11:03:59AM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
Please quit top posting.
Here is a script that I banged out in a few minutes, which
surely needs much improvement
Hal Vaughan wrote:
On Monday 29 January 2007 18:50, Paul Johnson wrote:
...
Oh, and everyone that uses e-mail spends their time reading every
RFC out there.
I don't expect them to. Though I do expect them to learn
Damn you're demanding, aren't you?
Well, the humor of watching someone
Steve Lamb wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
I think that has more to do with Opera marginalizing themselves by
expecting people to put up with *more* ads or pay for a web browser.
That has little to do with what the websites do with the user agent
string than anything else.
I don't see it that
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 19:17 -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
Steve Lamb wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
I think that has more to do with Opera marginalizing themselves by
expecting people to put up with *more* ads or pay for a web browser.
That has little to do with what the websites do with
Paul Johnson wrote:
Steve Lamb wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
I think that has more to do with Opera marginalizing themselves by
expecting people to put up with *more* ads or pay for a web browser.
That has little to do with what the websites do with the user agent
string than anything else.
On 1/29/07, Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 10:29:57PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061205
Iceweasel/2.0.0.1 (Debian-2.0.0.1+dfsg-2)
Wow, that's a bigg'un. The User agent string has only had one
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 10:43:44AM -0500, Hal Vaughan wrote:
On Sunday 28 January 2007 06:43, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 12:18:09AM -0500, Hal Vaughan wrote:
Now that's just mean. See my earlier response about rudeness being
a weak man's imitation of strength. You've
Atis writes:
Btw, Swiftfox (another ff clone) identifies as Firefox/2.0.0.1
(Swiftfox). I wonder, is usage Firefox in User-Agent also covered by
trademark?
I'm not a lawyer, but I find it extremely unlikely that such use would be
found to infringe the trademark.
--
John Hasler
--
To
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 03:40:45PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
Hal Vaughan wrote:
On Sunday 28 January 2007 18:36, Paul Johnson wrote:
I took the Pepsi Challenge and they video taped it. Pepsi lost
blindfolded. Funny how you didn't see me in the Pepsi ads...
What makes you think
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 01:38:26AM +0100, Marcus Blumhagen wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 10:05:58AM -0500, Max Hyre wrote:
My understanding is that IceApe (pardon the studly caps) is an
unbranded version of SeaMonkey. Thus we get:
Firefox - Iceweasel
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 00:44:05 -0500
Hal Vaughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How else are they going to fill up their 300GB hard drives if they can't
download nudie pics?
alt.binaries.movies.divx :)
Hal
--
David E. Fox
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 08:47:45PM +0100, Jan Willem Stumpel wrote:
Then there are the new names and logos themselves. What is an
Iceape? How should this beast be pronounced?
As I read the name it is a combination of ice and ape. Both can
be looked up in a dictionary. So now instead of a
Marcus Blumhagen wrote:
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 08:47:45PM +0100, Jan Willem Stumpel wrote:
Then there are the new names and logos themselves. What is an
Iceape? How should this beast be pronounced?
As I read the name it is a combination of ice and ape. Both can
be looked up in a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/30/07 09:05, Max Hyre wrote:
Marcus Blumhagen wrote:
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 08:47:45PM +0100, Jan Willem Stumpel wrote:
Then there are the new names and logos themselves. What is an
Iceape? How should this beast be pronounced?
As I read
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 08:36:01PM -0800, Marc Shapiro wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
Heh, here in the center of the Linux universe (Portland), lager
qualifies as
something from a can that's only suitable for killing slugs. Gotta get
yourself one of them Henry Weinhard's or Widmer's Hefeweizen
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 07:01:30PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
I would argue that if the value of your User-Agent string affects browsing
habits, then the bug is with the website, not the browser.
This is a battle you, and anyone else who thinks like you, is going to
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 10:05:58AM -0500, Max Hyre wrote:
My understanding is that IceApe (pardon the studly caps) is an
unbranded version of SeaMonkey. Thus we get:
Firefox - Iceweasel
Thunderbird - Icedove
Mozilla suite - Iceape
Oops, of
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 03:29:07PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
I believe K-C already lost the ability to enforce Kleenex as a trademark
after uptake made their brand the generic word for disposable tissue
primarily intended for your nose. Hormel is fighting an uphill battle and
using very
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 02:05:10AM -0500, Angelo Bertolli wrote:
If it's really looking for Firefox then the only thing I can imagine
is an anti-IE website done so on purpose.
You would be surprised. A large number of websites check user-agent
strings so that only supported browsers are
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 03:36:40PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
I would argue that if the value of your User-Agent string affects browsing
habits, then the bug is with the website, not the browser.
Good look convincing even 1% of website developers that employ such
brain-dead tactics that they
Steve Lamb wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
I would argue that if the value of your User-Agent string affects
browsing habits, then the bug is with the website, not the browser.
This is a battle you, and anyone else who thinks like you, is going to
lose. Opera has had user agent munging for
Paul Johnson wrote:
I think that has more to do with Opera marginalizing themselves by expecting
people to put up with *more* ads or pay for a web browser.
That has little to do with what the websites do with the user agent string
than anything else.
Sounds like the actual problem is that
Marc Shapiro wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
I would argue that if the value of your User-Agent string affects
browsing habits, then the bug is with the website, not the browser.
Agreed. But there are many websites with that bug.
True, though if you've got the time and willing to put forth
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 07:01:30PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
I would argue that if the value of your User-Agent string affects
browsing habits, then the bug is with the website, not the browser.
This is a battle you, and anyone else who
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
Don't those all come with some kind of anti-bacterial crap in them?
that may effect the outcome.
No, but they are primarily made out of polymers.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 09:38:02PM -0500, Hal Vaughan wrote:
On Sunday 28 January 2007 18:33, Paul Johnson wrote:
...
Do you see a difference?
You could have cancelled and looked into why that is. iceweasel
provides firefox because it *is* firefox. There is no functional
difference
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/28/07 22:20, Hal Vaughan wrote:
On Sunday 28 January 2007 22:52, Greg Folkert wrote:
On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 21:38 -0500, Hal Vaughan wrote:
On Sunday 28 January 2007 18:33, Paul Johnson wrote:
[snip]
Okay, I get that and thanks for the
John Hasler wrote:
Max Hyre writes:
Of course, they're fighting a losing battle in the casual usage...
In the US they [Kimberly-Clark] have no power over casual usage
[of the word `Kleenex'].
Yes, the law offers no help there, but they fight the tendency as
best they can. You'll see ad
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 10:29:57PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061205
Iceweasel/2.0.0.1 (Debian-2.0.0.1+dfsg-2)
Wow, that's a bigg'un. The User agent string has only had one thing
changed.
s/Iceweasel/Firefox/
My mistake. I
yea, verily, Angelo Bertolli sayith:
No, I mean a non-free firefox package in addition to iceweasel. I know
it sounds redundant, but I bet someone will start doing it eventually
since all it takes is using Mozilla's Linux binary and putting it in deb
format.
I've done this already for
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 08:44:01PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
You would think that after as long as we have had microwave ovens these days
that people would be aware that microwaves require moisture to work
properly...
Actually, no, I wouldn't. For the longest time, I thought it was
John Hasler wrote:
Max Hyre writes:
Of course, they're fighting a losing battle in the casual usage...
I wrote:
In the US they [Kimberly-Clark] have no power over casual usage
[of the word `Kleenex'].
Max Hyre writes:
Yes, the law offers no help there, but they fight the tendency as best
Doug writes:
So what did it do to the sponge? I don't have cable/satelite/highspeed
so I can't watch. I imagine that a natural sponge would turn into a
puddle of goo and a fake sponge may combust.
It probably would do nothing to a brand-new artificial sponge. A dirty but
dry one might be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/29/07 08:47, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 08:44:01PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
You would think that after as long as we have had microwave ovens these days
that people would be aware that microwaves require moisture
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 06:04:20PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 01/29/07 08:47, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 08:44:01PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
You would think that after as long as we have had microwave ovens these
days
that people would be aware that
Max Hyre wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
Angelo writes:
It was reiterated by Mozilla that if it doesn't do this, it will lose
some ability to protect its trademarks. IANAL, but somehow it just
doesn't sound right to me.
It needn't be right in order to be true. Trademark law is loony.
Hal Vaughan wrote:
On Sunday 28 January 2007 18:33, Paul Johnson wrote:
...
Do you see a difference?
You could have cancelled and looked into why that is. iceweasel
provides firefox because it *is* firefox. There is no functional
difference between firefox and iceweasel. You're making
Hal Vaughan wrote:
On Sunday 28 January 2007 18:36, Paul Johnson wrote:
Martin Schulze wrote:
Mike Hommey wrote:
Maybe not, because the name change makes it visible for him that
there has been a change indeed. Changes from 1.0 to 1.5 or 1.5 to
2.0 may be accepted as upstream changes
Steve Lamb wrote:
Hal Vaughan wrote:
On Sunday 28 January 2007 07:01, Martin Schulze wrote:
Remember the Cola tests? Blindfolded have preferred Pepsi over Coca,
with eyes open the result they preferred the Coca variant.
Funny. Blindfolded I took the same as I did without the blindfold.
Angelo Bertolli wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
Angelo Bertolli wrote:
I'm not clear on why Firefox couldn't be put in non-free though. (I
just figured it was for upgrades.)
Why put something in non-free if trivial changes to the name and artwork
makes it free?
No, I mean a non-free
Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 09:40:52PM +0100, Norbert Preining wrote:
On Sam, 27 Jan 2007, Piotr Dziubinski wrote:
Iceweasel and Firefox are a different products, very similar, but
different.
Can YOU please explain me what *important* differences there are?
[...]
Hal Vaughan wrote:
On Sunday 28 January 2007 18:42, Paul Johnson wrote:
Stephen R Laniel wrote:
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 11:03:59AM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
Please quit top posting.
Here is a script that I banged out in a few minutes, which
surely needs much improvement but
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 04:52:36PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
I think his point wasn't so much the version number as the name in
front
of it. Websites don't know what Iceweasel is, they do know what Firefox
is.
I think that such a thing is bad. I
Paul Johnson wrote:
I would argue that if the value of your User-Agent string affects browsing
habits, then the bug is with the website, not the browser.
This is a battle you, and anyone else who thinks like you, is going to
lose. Opera has had user agent munging for it's entire existence
On Monday 29 January 2007 18:50, Paul Johnson wrote:
...
Oh, and everyone that uses e-mail spends their time reading every
RFC out there.
I don't expect them to. Though I do expect them to learn
Damn you're demanding, aren't you?
Remember you're always going to be dealing with newbies
On Monday 29 January 2007 18:40, Paul Johnson wrote:
Hal Vaughan wrote:
On Sunday 28 January 2007 18:36, Paul Johnson wrote:
Martin Schulze wrote:
Mike Hommey wrote:
Maybe not, because the name change makes it visible for him that
there has been a change indeed. Changes from 1.0 to
On Monday 29 January 2007 00:46, Greg Folkert wrote:
...
The actual things removed:
http://gnuzilla.gnu.org/fulltree/iceweasel-1.5.0.7-g2/remove.nonfree
Most all of them are Graphics related, except for the auto-updater
for Firefox...err Iceweasel and a Platforms Debian does not support
I have a question, if anyone here has an answer...
Is it the intent of the Debian team that Iceweasel actually fork the
codebase, or are they just going to remove the nonfree bits and change
the name of each new Firefox release? If the former, then it will
become a new beast. It is only a
Paul Johnson wrote:
I would argue that if the value of your User-Agent string affects browsing
habits, then the bug is with the website, not the browser.
Agreed. But there are many websites with that bug.
--
Marc Shapiro
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paul Johnson wrote:
Heh, here in the center of the Linux universe (Portland), lager qualifies as
something from a can that's only suitable for killing slugs. Gotta get
yourself one of them Henry Weinhard's or Widmer's Hefeweizen if you wanna
do it right. :o)
Henry Weinhard's Blue Boar.
On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 20:03 -0800, Marc Shapiro wrote:
I have a question, if anyone here has an answer...
Is it the intent of the Debian team that Iceweasel actually fork the
codebase, or are they just going to remove the nonfree bits and change
the name of each new Firefox release? If
Paul Johnson wrote:
Angelo Bertolli wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
Angelo Bertolli wrote:
I'm not clear on why Firefox couldn't be put in non-free though. (I
just figured it was for upgrades.)
Why put something in non-free if trivial changes to the name and
Paul Johnson wrote:
Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
There is actually an operational difference. In the about:config page
the setting general.useragent.extra.firefox is set to
Iceweasel/2.0.0.1. Looks harmless, but it stopped me from logging
on to a website. It would only let me in when I set
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 09:40:52PM +0100, Norbert Preining [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sam, 27 Jan 2007, Piotr Dziubinski wrote:
Iceweasel and Firefox are a different products, very similar, but different.
Can YOU please explain me what *important* differences there are?
If you miss the
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 12:18:09AM -0500, Hal Vaughan wrote:
On Friday 26 January 2007 23:19, Angelo Bertolli wrote:
Piotr Dziubinski wrote:
Ex-Debian user...
... back to the Gentoo
If going to the Mozilla website to download and install Firefox is
too much work for you, Debian is
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 11:19:44PM -0500, Angelo Bertolli wrote:
Piotr Dziubinski wrote:
Ex-Debian user...
... back to the Gentoo
If going to the Mozilla website to download and install Firefox is too
much work for you, Debian is definitely not a good choice for you. You
Thats one of
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 01:03:21AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 01/27/07 00:57, Oleg Verych wrote:
Poor man ;) Seriously, i've had enough from mozilla/firefox long
ago: screen, lynx, slrn, mutt are my friends.
See? No hands... ups X Window, it's magic!
So, what's it like in 1994?
Piotr Dziubinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no longer firefox in debian etch, so after typing:
apt-get install firefox
I would like to see announcement: Firefox packages are no longer present in
debian distribution, please try iceweasel.
Do you see a difference?
Yes. Just printing
Mike Hommey wrote:
To be fair, it's not exactly true, because upgrading from firefox to
iceweasel in debian means upgrading from version 1.0 or 1.5 to 2.0, and
there are substancial changes that some people dislike, myself included.
Which means Piotr is actually probably complaining about
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 11:48:52PM +0100, Jochen Schulz wrote:
--
In the west we kill people like chickens.
[Agree] [Disagree]
No opinion. When I was in the west I didn't see any prople that
resembled chickens.
-- hendrik
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 06:18:19PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
Like the people who read the CNN article about sterilizing sponges
in the microwave?
What about sterilizing sponges in the microwave?
-- hendrik
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 10:33:13AM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 03:55:33PM +0100, Piotr Dziubinski wrote:
Only Etch supports amd64, so I was forced to use Etch.
There is an unofficial Sarge release for amd64. I use it on a couple of
servers and many Debian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/28/07 08:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 06:18:19PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
Like the people who read the CNN article about sterilizing sponges
in the microwave?
What about sterilizing sponges in the microwave?
You
On Sunday 28 January 2007 07:01, Martin Schulze wrote:
Mike Hommey wrote:
To be fair, it's not exactly true, because upgrading from firefox
to iceweasel in debian means upgrading from version 1.0 or 1.5 to
2.0, and there are substancial changes that some people dislike,
myself included.
On Sunday 28 January 2007 06:43, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 12:18:09AM -0500, Hal Vaughan wrote:
On Friday 26 January 2007 23:19, Angelo Bertolli wrote:
Piotr Dziubinski wrote:
Ex-Debian user...
... back to the Gentoo
If going to the Mozilla website to
On Sunday 28 January 2007 02:42, Mike Hommey wrote:
To be fair, it's not exactly true, because upgrading from firefox to
iceweasel in debian means upgrading from version 1.0 or 1.5 to 2.0,
and there are substancial changes that some people dislike, myself
included.
I don't even want to get
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 12:02:43PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I've suggested that iceweasel provides+conflicts+replaces firefox,
which AFAICT would instead produce the output:
Note, selecting iceweasel instead of firefox
[...other stuff about packages...]
Do you want to continue? [Y/n]
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 09:07:44AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/28/07 08:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 06:18:19PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
Like the people who read the CNN article about sterilizing sponges
in the
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 12:44:05AM -0500, Hal Vaughan wrote:
On Saturday 27 January 2007 00:32, Ron Johnson wrote:
(Teenagers do not have an unalienable right to do have
Myspace pages
Personally, I'm fine with letting teens on MySpace and similar
wastelands. Let them have places
On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 14:02 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 12:44:05AM -0500, Hal Vaughan wrote:
On Saturday 27 January 2007 00:32, Ron Johnson wrote:
(Teenagers do not have an unalienable right to do have
Myspace pages
Personally, I'm fine with letting
The choice of words by the OP was unfortunate, to say the least.
But among all his blathering there was the germ of a valid point.
Debian IMHO should carefully weigh the advantages and
disadvantages of adhering --uncompromisingly-- to the letter of
its doctrine.
The renaming of the programs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 06:18:19PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
Like the people who read the CNN article about sterilizing sponges
in the microwave?
What about sterilizing sponges in the microwave?
T'hell with the sponges, how does one read CNN, exactly?
--
Hal Vaughan wrote:
On Sunday 28 January 2007 07:01, Martin Schulze wrote:
Remember the Cola tests? Blindfolded have preferred Pepsi over Coca,
with eyes open the result they preferred the Coca variant.
Funny. Blindfolded I took the same as I did without the blindfold. Coke
either way.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/28/07 15:04, Steve Lamb wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 06:18:19PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
Like the people who read the CNN article about sterilizing sponges
in the microwave?
What about sterilizing sponges in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/28/07 15:06, Steve Lamb wrote:
Hal Vaughan wrote:
On Sunday 28 January 2007 07:01, Martin Schulze wrote:
Remember the Cola tests? Blindfolded have preferred Pepsi over Coca,
with eyes open the result they preferred the Coca variant.
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 20:47:45 +0100
Jan Willem Stumpel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The choice of words by the OP was unfortunate, to say the least.
But among all his blathering there was the germ of a valid point.
Debian IMHO should carefully weigh the advantages and
disadvantages of adhering
On Sunday 28 January 2007 22:04, Steve Lamb wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 06:18:19PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
Like the people who read the CNN article about sterilizing sponges
in the microwave?
What about sterilizing sponges in the microwave?
T'hell
Jan Willem Stumpel wrote:
The choice of words by the OP was unfortunate, to say the least.
But among all his blathering there was the germ of a valid point.
The only potential valid point I saw coming out of it was that maybe
transitional wasn't the way to go. I don't know what other
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 09:40:52PM +0100, Norbert Preining wrote:
On Sam, 27 Jan 2007, Piotr Dziubinski wrote:
Iceweasel and Firefox are a different products, very similar, but
different.
Can YOU please explain me what *important* differences there are?
[...]
Otherwise I would like to see
Angelo writes:
It was reiterated by Mozilla that if it doesn't do this, it will lose
some ability to protect its trademarks. IANAL, but somehow it just
doesn't sound right to me.
It needn't be right in order to be true. Trademark law is loony.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/28/07 16:26, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 09:40:52PM +0100, Norbert Preining wrote:
On Sam, 27 Jan 2007, Piotr Dziubinski wrote:
Iceweasel and Firefox are a different products, very similar, but
different.
Can YOU please
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 01/28/07 16:26, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
There is actually an operational difference. In the about:config page
the setting general.useragent.extra.firefox is set to
Iceweasel/2.0.0.1. Looks harmless, but it stopped me from logging
on to a website. It would only let me
Please don't top post, we all read English in chronological (not random)
order.
http://wiki.ursine.ca/Best_Online_Quoting_Practices
Piotr Dziubinski wrote:
Only Etch supports amd64, so I was forced to use Etch.
Command I have used:
apt-get install firefox
NOT
apt-get install iceweasel
Martin Schulze wrote:
Mike Hommey wrote:
To be fair, it's not exactly true, because upgrading from firefox to
iceweasel in debian means upgrading from version 1.0 or 1.5 to 2.0, and
there are substancial changes that some people dislike, myself included.
Which means Piotr is actually
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 04:52:36PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
I think his point wasn't so much the version number as the name in front
of it. Websites don't know what Iceweasel is, they do know what Firefox is.
I think that such a thing is bad. I understand the purpose behind the
name
Angelo Bertolli wrote:
I'm not clear on why Firefox couldn't be put in non-free though. (I
just figured it was for upgrades.)
Why put something in non-free if trivial changes to the name and artwork
makes it free?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 01/28/07 08:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 06:18:19PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
Like the people who read the CNN article about sterilizing sponges
in the microwave?
What about sterilizing sponges in the microwave?
You must not read /..
You
Stephen R Laniel wrote:
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 11:03:59AM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
Please quit top posting.
Here is a script that I banged out in a few minutes, which
surely needs much improvement but will hopefully go some way
toward making the top-posting debate -- which is
yea, verily, Paul Johnson sayith:
..trivial changes to the name and artwork
makes it free?
It's still a fork. The differences will grow.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sunday 28 January 2007 18:42, Paul Johnson wrote:
Stephen R Laniel wrote:
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 11:03:59AM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
Please quit top posting.
Here is a script that I banged out in a few minutes, which
surely needs much improvement but will hopefully go some
On Sunday 28 January 2007 18:36, Paul Johnson wrote:
Martin Schulze wrote:
Mike Hommey wrote:
To be fair, it's not exactly true, because upgrading from firefox
to iceweasel in debian means upgrading from version 1.0 or 1.5 to
2.0, and there are substancial changes that some people
On Sunday 28 January 2007 18:33, Paul Johnson wrote:
...
Do you see a difference?
You could have cancelled and looked into why that is. iceweasel
provides firefox because it *is* firefox. There is no functional
difference between firefox and iceweasel. You're making a mountain
out of a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/28/07 17:50, Paul Johnson wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 01/28/07 08:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 06:18:19PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
Like the people who read the CNN article about sterilizing sponges
in the
Roberto C. Sanchez writes:
But a browser that claims to be a Firefox-alike should function as much
like Firefox as possible. To me that means not messing with the
useragent string.
I think that the maintainer believes (erroneously, IMHO) that he had to
change it to avoid trademark
On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 20:28 -0600, Dave Patterson wrote:
yea, verily, Paul Johnson sayith:
..trivial changes to the name and artwork
makes it free?
It's still a fork. The differences will grow.
The only real changes since its inception are; The Logos, the name and
some variables (and
On Sunday 28 January 2007 22:08, Greg Folkert wrote:
On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 20:28 -0600, Dave Patterson wrote:
yea, verily, Paul Johnson sayith:
..trivial changes to the name and artwork
makes it free?
It's still a fork. The differences will grow.
The only real changes since its
On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 21:13 -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 04:52:36PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
I think his point wasn't so much the version number as the name in front
of it. Websites don't know what Iceweasel is, they do know what Firefox is.
I think
John Hasler wrote:
Angelo writes:
It was reiterated by Mozilla that if it doesn't do this, it will lose
some ability to protect its trademarks. IANAL, but somehow it just
doesn't sound right to me.
It needn't be right in order to be true. Trademark law is loony.
Actually, it's right,
1 - 100 of 167 matches
Mail list logo
