-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 16 Jan 2007, at 20:09, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
Additionally, i could not find a way to make the flash plugin
work, which is a major annoyance given the amount of flash content
that one finds in the services i use daily (some work related too).
You
On 2007-01-17, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> On Wednesday, 17 January 2007 at 3:16:44 +0100, Roland Smith wrote:
> > Personally I like tabbed browsing a lot, but different strokes for
> > different folks.
>
> It probably depends on your window manager. Tabs are a reasonable
> workaround for windo
On Wednesday, 17 January 2007 at 3:16:44 +0100, Roland Smith wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 11:37:53AM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
>>
>> I can't agree. It has hijacked some keys used by Wikipedia (alt-S,
>> alt-P), and so far I've found it impossible to disable tabs, something
>> that was
On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 11:37:53AM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
>
> I can't agree. It has hijacked some keys used by Wikipedia (alt-S,
> alt-P), and so far I've found it impossible to disable tabs, something
> that was barely possible under 1.5. Tell me how to fix that and I'll
> be margina
On Wednesday, 17 January 2007 at 9:56:51 +1000, Greg Black wrote:
> On 2007-01-16, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>
>> The 1.5.x version _is_ working for me. It is 2.0.x that
>> exhibits severe problems.
>
> I was surprised and annoyed when I found that the reasonably reliable
> 1.5.x version had been replace
On 2007-01-16, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> The 1.5.x version _is_ working for me. It is 2.0.x that
> exhibits severe problems.
I was surprised and annoyed when I found that the reasonably reliable
1.5.x version had been replaced by 2.0, partly because I expected it to
be less reliable and partly because
On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 10:07:39PM +, Pete French wrote:
> > If you had any idea how many RFC's IE violates and and how many bugs there
> > are in it you would never have made a statement like that.
>
> I don't think here ever said that IE was *better*, just that it was
> necessary for certai
On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 11:41:22PM +0100, Pietro Cerutti wrote:
> On 1/16/07, Luigi Rizzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > So i am just advocating to keep the "stable" version around while
> > the "current" one becomes stable enough.
>
> You can get that port back to a specific date (e.g. with
>
Hello,
linux-firefox-2.0.0.1 works fine for me. Cheers, -vlado
vlado.srv# uname -a
FreeBSD srv.g1.netng.org 6.2-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-PRERELEASE #1: Fri
Nov 3 20:20:33 CET 2006
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usrmnt/src/sys/SRV i386
vlado.srv# ll /var/db/pkg/ | grep firefox
drwxr-xr-x 2 root wheel
On 1/16/07, Luigi Rizzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So i am just advocating to keep the "stable" version around while
the "current" one becomes stable enough.
You can get that port back to a specific date (e.g. with
sysutils/portdowngrade) and reinstall the version which better applies
your nee
> If you had any idea how many RFC's IE violates and and how many bugs there
> are in it you would never have made a statement like that.
I don't think here ever said that IE was *better*, just that it was
necessary for certain sites (which is undeniably true) and that if
all you have available i
On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 10:14:41PM +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote:
...
> If linux-firefox isn't working for youhere, I really don't have any
The 1.5.x version _is_ working for me. It is 2.0.x that
exhibits severe problems.
My complaint (to get back on the topic) is that 1.5 disappeared from
the
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:09:35 -0800
Luigi Rizzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the many times i tried (up to a few months ago and with 1.0.5 or
> 1.0.7) it crashed randomly while browsing, within a few hours of use,
> and this was enough for me to give up.
First: I find that running native firefox _
ssage -
From: "Luigi Rizzo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Torfinn Ingolfsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 8:09 PM
Subject: Re: can we resurrect linux-firefox-1.5 ?
On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 07:37:22PM +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote:
On Tue, 1
On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 07:37:22PM +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 01:06:45 -0800
> Luigi Rizzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Would it be possible to resurrect the linux-firefox 1.5
> > port (under a separate name) so at least people have a choice
> > on which set of bugs
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 01:06:45 -0800
Luigi Rizzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would it be possible to resurrect the linux-firefox 1.5
> port (under a separate name) so at least people have a choice
> on which set of bugs they prefer ?
What makes native firefox unsuitable for you?
--
Regards,
Torfi
[sorry if i don't post this to -ports, but i feel
that this is really a -stable issue as it affects
one widely used port]
I am not sure if i am the only one, but on RELENG_6,
linux-firefox 2 is basically unusable (see details below),
while linux-firefox 1.5 is at least usable (even though
it has s
17 matches
Mail list logo
