Re: Firefox 12 stability

Dave Brown wrote: > > Remember when emacs was at version 1.18? Then they decided to drop the > "1" and go the version-hyperinflation route. Sheesh. And xterm is on version 258 and less is on version 436. The sky is falling! > Kind of like how Apple short-circuited the iPad version number inflat

Re: Firefox 12 stability

Dave Brown writes: > Version-number hyperinflation ... It's not really a new thing, $ less --version less 444 Doesn't seem to cause anybody any harm. Smylers -- http://twitter.com/Smylers2

Re: Firefox 12 stability

with the assumption > that, since Firefox 3 was the latest for years, it would never have > to handle a 2-digit version code. > > So when Firefox 10 came out, it assumed I was using Firefox 1, and > changed its webmail page appropriately. Version-number hyperinflation seems to hav

Re: Firefox 12 stability

On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 04:58:35PM +0200, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: > I would ask if you would be upset at this if the releases were identical > except they were called 4.6 thru 4.11??? I woiuld be even more upset at that, because 4.11 < 4.6. -- David Cantrell | Nth greatest programmer in the w

Re: Firefox 12 stability

they were called 4.6 thru 4.11??? but we are here united in hate of >software so this is not the place to do so. If they were equally prone to break any software that made the mistake of trying to work with Firefox (rather than holding it off with a chair and a whip), then yes...

Re: Firefox 12 stability

* Numien [2012-05-04 12:30]: > I'm not entirely sure which software to hate more in this case. Any way you turn it, the mail server. That was plain stupid. What, does it cost extra in string manipulation fees to grab more characters? * Roger Burton West [2012-05-04 09:40]: > With 6-11, would yo

Re: Firefox 12 stability

On 04/05/12 03:35 AM, Roger Burton West wrote: With 6-11, would you have had time to notice before a new version came out? Which is a hate in itself. My e-mail server (Kerio Mailserver) was written with the assumption that, since Firefox 3 was the latest for years, it would never have to

Re: Firefox 12 stability

On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 02:45:00AM +0200, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: >I fail to remember if I even had any crashes with versions >6 thru 11, but since the upgrade to 12 it has been crashing on me every >couple of hours. With 6-11, would you have had time to notice before a new version came out?

Firefox 12 stability

Hooray, it just crashed on me after I’d spent an hour writing a comment. “Well, this is embarrassing” is cute when you don’t see it thrice daily for 10 days. I fail to remember if I even had any crashes with versions 6 thru 11, but since the upgrade to 12 it has been crashing on me every couple of

Re: Firefox

ed reached the optimum not only in user interface but in error message already years ago. In the below you have to be careful not to confuse the user input and the (error) response: $ ed ? ? q $ -- There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen

Re: Firefox

On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 02:33:09PM +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote: > > Right! And that should be information I can use to `fix' your fuckups? Most error messages are the subject of hate. I only comfort myself by realising that I have produced some pretty unhelpful ones in my time.

Firefox

How useful can you make your error messages? $ firefox Could not find compatible GRE between version 1.9.1.7 and 1.9.1.7. Exit 1 Right! And that should be information I can use to `fix' your fuckups? -- H.Merijn Brand http://tux.nl Perl Monger http://amsterdam.pm.org/ using &

Re: What the fsck? (Firefox 3)

* Joshua Juran [2009-11-27 23:30]: > Fixing mbox isn't hard -- it's easy enough to mandate that > a leading '>' must be escaped -- but the trick is making sure > people don't continue to use broken legacy tools, which is > basically impossible. You can fix it in a different way that is backwards

Re: What the fsck? (Firefox 3)

On Nov 27, 2009, at 1:59 PM, Joshua Rodman wrote: On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 01:06:04PM -0800, Joshua Juran wrote: On Nov 27, 2009, at 10:04 AM, Simon Wistow wrote: On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 01:29:26PM +, Roger Burton West said: I should like to find the person who decided that since "bookmar

Re: What the fsck? (Firefox 3)

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 01:06:04PM -0800, Joshua Juran wrote: > On Nov 27, 2009, at 10:04 AM, Simon Wistow wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 01:29:26PM +, Roger Burton West said: >>> I should like to find the person who decided that since "bookmarks" >>> and >>> "history" were both lists of

Re: What the fsck? (Firefox 3)

On Nov 27, 2009, at 10:04 AM, Simon Wistow wrote: On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 01:29:26PM +, Roger Burton West said: I should like to find the person who decided that since "bookmarks" and "history" were both lists of URLs they ought to be integrated in a single database. I should like to shak

Re: What the fsck? (Firefox 3)

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 01:29:26PM +, Roger Burton West said: > I should like to find the person who decided that since "bookmarks" and > "history" were both lists of URLs they ought to be integrated in a > single database. I should like to shake him warmly by the throat until > his head comes

What the fsck? (Firefox 3)

It didn't seem like such a hard thing to do. I use a bunch of different web browsers, depending on what I'm doing - Dillo, Firefox and Elinks are the main ones. I like to keep bookmarks synchronised between them. I also like to keep the master copy of the bookmarks in a plain text fi

Re: Firefox (Re: YouTube)

Joshua Rodman writes: > One of the growing list of reasons to disable javascript by default. > > Which of course exposes the growing list of websites which can't produce > static content without javascript. Bu Well, you know, is just too complicated. Matthew -- I must take issue

Re: Firefox (Re: YouTube)

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 10:42:26AM +, Peter Corlett wrote: > On 13 Mar 2009, at 09:44, Joshua Juran wrote: > [...] >> "Just delete the YouTube cookies," I said. But no, it's never that >> simple, is it? Because in Firefox, deleting a site's cookie

Re: Firefox (Re: YouTube)

On 13 Mar 2009, at 09:44, Joshua Juran wrote: [...] "Just delete the YouTube cookies," I said. But no, it's never that simple, is it? Because in Firefox, deleting a site's cookies also means to block that site's cookies from now on. It wasn't until I also d

Re: Firefox (Re: YouTube)

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 04:44, Joshua Juran wrote: "Just delete the YouTube cookies," I said.  But no, it's never that simple, is it?  Because in Firefox, deleting a site's cookies also means to block that site's cookies from now on.  It wasn't until I also delete

Firefox (Re: YouTube)

ack to the server on every request, expiring with the session. Unfortunately, this time Firefox failed to crash in advance of exhausting the allowed Cookie header length. Well, now that I know the problem it's no big deal right? Just delete the YouTube cookies, and login again. Ex

Re: Vim Firefox Detection

* Smylers [2009-01-22 18:30]: > I desire for Vim to detect when it has been launched from > within Firefox (to edit a text area or whatever[*1]. The correct answer is mu. Configure the extension to pass something like `--cmd 'let g:in_firefox=1'` or `-s textarea.vim` to vim. Alt

Vim Firefox Detection

I desire for Vim to detect when it has been launched from within Firefox (to edit a text area or whatever[*1]. Initially I spotted I could do this with: if exists('$MOZILLA_FIVE_HOME') Then at some point Firefox (or whatever it was called at the time) hatefully stopped setting tha

Firefox hate ^W customization.

So... in a fit of enthusiasm I thought "Golly, that Firefox. A new release, the third major version. Maybe things have gotten less awful since last time I tried it." After all, Opera has plenty to hate, and some of the features of Firefox are kind of nice -- especially the ones whe

Re: Dear Firefox, the address of the loopback is not a useful information

T"; > > > > But the function myIpAddress() always returns "127.0.0.1". HOW USEFUL IS > THAT. > > This is probably the result of a mildly broken OS config, not Firefox. > Assuming you are using some *nix variety, check /etc/hosts. Most Linux > distributions

Re: Dear Firefox, the address of the loopback is not a useful information

"255.0.0.0")) { return "my office's proxy settings"; } return "DIRECT"; But the function myIpAddress() always returns "127.0.0.1". HOW USEFUL IS THAT. This is probably the result of a mildly broken OS config, not Firefox. Assuming you are using some *n

Dear Firefox, the address of the loopback is not a useful information

So I was writing a neat proxy.pac to put on my laptop so it could adjust what web proxy to use depending on my location. Basically, I wanted to do something like this : if (isInNet(myIpAddress(), "10.0.0.0", "255.0.0.0")) { return "my office's proxy settings"; } return "DIRECT"; But the funct

Re: Firefox 401 festival

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 12:10:36AM +0100, Earle Martin wrote: > "Database Unavailable > Between 11pm on Tuesdays and 6am on Wednesdays the School of Computer > Science Oracle Database is backed up and is unavailable. Please try > again later." > > 7 hours to back up a database? Really? And that s

Re: Firefox 401 festival

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:10:36 +0100, "Earle Martin" wrote: > 2008/4/29 Walt Mankowski : > > Impressively hateful. Wow. > > I think this is more hateful: > > "Database Unavailable > Between 11pm on Tuesdays and 6am on Wednesdays the School of Computer > Science Oracle Database is backed up and

Re: Firefox 401 festival

> > Also, the wording makes it sound like their database is constipated. Aren't most databases? >

Re: Firefox 401 festival

2008/4/29 Walt Mankowski : > Impressively hateful. Wow. I think this is more hateful: "Database Unavailable Between 11pm on Tuesdays and 6am on Wednesdays the School of Computer Science Oracle Database is backed up and is unavailable. Please try again later." 7 hours to back up a database? Rea

Re: Firefox 401 festival

Somewhere on Shadow Earth, at Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 03:27:06PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote: > Why yes, of course it makes sense to prompt me for a passowrd for every > picture on the page! > > http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/people/ I don't know that the English language has a word for hateful

Re: Firefox 401 festival

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 03:27:06PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote: > Why yes, of course it makes sense to prompt me for a passowrd for every > picture on the page! > > http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/people/ Impressively hateful. Wow.

Firefox 401 festival

Why yes, of course it makes sense to prompt me for a passowrd for every picture on the page! http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/people/ Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/ FAIR ISLE FAEROES: CYCLONIC BECOMING EASTERLY 5 OR 6. ROUGH OR VERY ROUGH. RAIN OR SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD,

Re: Firefox and client certificates

ad tells the server "Sorry guv, never 'eard of that cer'ifica'e, > 'onest!", which makes the server redirect to the certificate download > page without any clue as to why. What I've found is that Firefox will prompt, once, for the master password to get a

Firefox and client certificates

ARGH, stupid, inconsistent, confusing Firefox! So, my online bank requires a client certificate, a PIN and a one-time password (from a card or sent via SMS) to log in. I have deliberately not saved the PIN in Firefox' password manager, but the client certificate is stored in the same place

Re: Firefox, we're not going steady...

On 12/03/2008, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: > (Also hooray for MediaWiki and "The title given to this article > is incorrect due to technical limitations"! It's only the wiki > engine behind a wannabe encyclopedia; why would it need to get > such minor things right?) That too, but bonus hate to

Re: Firefox, we're not going steady...

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 05:19:56PM -0400, num...@deathwyrm.com wrote: > I keep Firefox on desktop 2, Thunderbird on desktop 3. (Yes, I use > both... call me a masochist.) When I click a link in an email in > Thunderbird, Firefox obligingly teleports to desktop 3 to show it. >

Re: Firefox, we're not going steady...

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, num...@deathwyrm.com wrote: > > I keep Firefox on desktop 2, Thunderbird on desktop 3. (Yes, I use > both... call me a masochist.) When I click a link in an email in > Thunderbird, Firefox obligingly teleports to desktop 3 to show it. > > Firefox 2 di

Re: Firefox, we're not going steady...

Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote: Timothy Knox writes: I don't remember when, but somewhere in the last year or so, Firefox has started to want the focus, ALWAYS! Firefox, I clicked on another app! Just because some d*mn web page you are trying to render wants to set a d*mn cookie does NOT

Re: Firefox, we're not going steady...

On 2008-03-12 at 14:47 +0100, Ann Barcomb wrote: > One thing I've always hated about Firefox is that it can't figure > out that it should remove the newline instead of discarding the > second half of a URL when I paste in one which happens to have been > formatted to 80 cha

Re: Firefox, we're not going steady...

* Juerd Waalboer [2008-03-12 18:05]: > Ann Barcomb skribis 2008-03-12 17:30 (+0100): > > If it is a multi-line box, why can't it accept my multi-line > > URLs? All the drawbacks with none of the benefits. > > Oh, it can, but you'll have to PASTE those. > > I see that in FF3 it no longer works. I

Re: Firefox, we're not going steady...

Ann Barcomb writes: > All the drawbacks with none of the benefits. As near as I can tell, this is the driving factor behind the FF UI. seph

Re: Firefox, we're not going steady...

On 12/03/2008, Denny wrote: > On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Ann Barcomb wrote: > > > > The address bar is a multi-line text entry box... > > > If it is a multi-line box, why can't it accept my multi-line URLs? > > As far as I can tell, it does. Paste the URL in, hit the home key, hit > backspace (to remo

Re: Firefox, we're not going steady...

Ann Barcomb skribis 2008-03-12 17:30 (+0100): > If it is a multi-line box, why can't it accept my multi-line URLs? > All the drawbacks with none of the benefits. Oh, it can, but you'll have to PASTE those. I see that in FF3 it no longer works. In FF2 IIRC it did. -- Met vriendelijke groet, Kind

Re: Firefox, we're not going steady...

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Ann Barcomb wrote: > > The address bar is a multi-line text entry box... > > If it is a multi-line box, why can't it accept my multi-line URLs? As far as I can tell, it does. Paste the URL in, hit the home key, hit backspace (to remove the line-break) and voila, single-lin

Re: Firefox, we're not going steady...

The address bar is a multi-line text entry box... this means that if you go up slightly as you end your selection, it inverts (because it selects to that point on the line above, and from where you were to the start of the line you were on). I suspect that you're hitting delete just as the GUI u

Re: Firefox, we're not going steady...

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Ann Barcomb wrote: > For some reason it always switches focus on part of a URL right before > I hit delete also. I'll highlight the part I want removed, hit delete, > and see that the wrong part has vanished. I think I know what causes this one... The address bar is a multi-

Re: Firefox, we're not going steady...

One thing I've always hated about Firefox is that it can't figure out that it should remove the newline instead of discarding the second half of a URL when I paste in one which happens to have been formatted to 80 characters. For some reason it always switches focus on part of a URL ri

Re: Firefox, we're not going steady...

On 2008-03-12, at 05:21, Adeola Awoyemi wrote: Now I gotta find a better browser but I'm somewhat scared of Safari too... Camino's got it's own hatefulness but mostly just works.

Re: Firefox, we're not going steady...

ilm...@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker) writes: Timothy Knox writes: I don't remember when, but somewhere in the last year or so, Firefox has started to want the focus, ALWAYS! Firefox, I clicked on another app! Just because some d*mn web page you are trying to render wants to set a

Re: Firefox, we're not going steady...

Timothy Knox writes: > I don't remember when, but somewhere in the last year or so, Firefox has > started > to want the focus, ALWAYS! Firefox, I clicked on another app! Just because > some > d*mn web page you are trying to render wants to set a d*mn cookie does NOT >

Re: Firefox, we're not going steady...

On 12 Mar 2008, at 03:11, Timothy Knox wrote: I don't remember when, but somewhere in the last year or so, Firefox has started to want the focus, ALWAYS! Firefox, I clicked on another app! Just because some d*mn web page you are trying to render wants to set a d*mn cookie does NOT

Firefox, we're not going steady...

I don't remember when, but somewhere in the last year or so, Firefox has started to want the focus, ALWAYS! Firefox, I clicked on another app! Just because some d*mn web page you are trying to render wants to set a d*mn cookie does NOT give you the right to pop back in to the front and steal

Re: Hating firefox and remote

* Timothy Knox [2008-02-20 23:00]: > So it was not too painful to hack it up to allow > me to opt out of the whole evil remote thing The Tao of Firefox flows far away and returns on the wind of morning. The wrapper script in an official FF2 release takes a `-no-remote` switch that is not

Re: Hating firefox and remote

Timothy Knox wrote: IIRC setting the environment variable MOZ_NO_REMOTE (catchy!) disables this behaviour. As violations of the principle of least astonishment go, though, it's a doozy. Is that your final answer? ;-) Of course that doesn't work, at least on the firefox installed o

Re: Hating firefox and remote

gt;> Linux >> boxes. Woo-hoo! I can run firefox on any of my boxes...or can I? > > IIRC setting the environment variable MOZ_NO_REMOTE (catchy!) disables this > behaviour. As violations of the principle of least astonishment go, though, > it's a doozy. Is that your final

Re: Hating firefox and remote

Timothy Knox wrote: I spend my days in heavily Linux-y environment. My main machine is a Linux box, my dev box is Linux, my client-test box and my server-test box are all Linux boxes. Woo-hoo! I can run firefox on any of my boxes...or can I? IIRC setting the environment variable MOZ_NO_REMOTE

Hating firefox and remote

I spend my days in heavily Linux-y environment. My main machine is a Linux box, my dev box is Linux, my client-test box and my server-test box are all Linux boxes. Woo-hoo! I can run firefox on any of my boxes...or can I? Those of you who like to skip ahead to the end know the answer to this: Of

Re: A note to Firefox

Jan Martin Mathiassen wrote: On Wed, January 30, 2008 08:47, num...@deathwyrm.com wrote: Dave Brown wrote: But Firefox is so amazing, why would you ever want to leave? I would want to leave because firefox is so amazing, that once in a while it'll suddenly decide to use up all availabl

Re: A note to Firefox

On Wed, January 30, 2008 08:47, num...@deathwyrm.com wrote: Dave Brown wrote: But Firefox is so amazing, why would you ever want to leave? I would want to leave because firefox is so amazing, that once in a while it'll suddenly decide to use up all available CPU on one of my cores, un

Re: A note to Firefox

> Webmail is hateful by itself, but Firefox suddenly disappearing after > writing an elaborate, fuming hate is apocalyptically hateful. > > This is my third attempt to write this hate. At least some webmail is less hateful than others. Gmail won't let you close the window accide

Re: A note to Firefox

On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 09:05 +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:25:37 +0900, Dave Brown wrote: > > > Dear Firefox, > > > > Ctrl+Q means Quit Application. > > It takes a lot of tuits to get that key-combo *removed* from applications. > Luckil

Re: A note to Firefox

Dave Brown wrote: But Firefox is so amazing, why would you ever want to leave? At least it isn't one of the (blessedly few) applications which think Ctrl-X means Exit. It's time for Shortcut Hate! Today: Ctrl-W! Firefox: "Close window". Generic Unix: "Delete word at

Re: A note to Firefox

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:25:37 +0900, Dave Brown wrote: > Dear Firefox, > > Ctrl+Q means Quit Application. It takes a lot of tuits to get that key-combo *removed* from applications. Luckily I manage with Opera to get that key combo disabled. I *HATE* that sequence. Quit application

Re: A note to Firefox

Dave Brown wrote: Dear Firefox, Ctrl+Q means Quit Application. No, you're not so important that you get to be the only application in the world which doesn't have a Quit keyboard shortcut. No love, --Dave But Firefox is so amazing, why would you ever want to leave? At least it is

A note to Firefox

Dear Firefox, Ctrl+Q means Quit Application. No, you're not so important that you get to be the only application in the world which doesn't have a Quit keyboard shortcut. No love, --Dave

Re: Firefox Update

Earle Martin wrote: On 04/01/2008, Smylers wrote: 'Restart' still doesn't make sense -- the thing hasn't even started once yet (since this updater thing appeared when I ran Firefox). What I want: A little box appears saying "[information icon] Firefox has been u

Re: Firefox Update

On 04/01/2008, Smylers wrote: > 'Restart' still doesn't make sense -- the thing hasn't even started once > yet (since this updater thing appeared when I ran Firefox). What I want: A little box appears saying "[information icon] Firefox has been updated." Th

Re: Firefox Update

Peter da Silva writes: > On 2008-01-03, at 13:48, Michael G Schwern wrote: > > > Firefox has been updated. > > [OK] [Cancel] Nice! (Though for what it's worth, it wasn't Firefox which was being updated here, but some extensions.) >

Re: Firefox Update

On 2008-01-03, at 14:40, Chris Devers wrote: That's nagware; "skip" and "defer" aren't the same thing. If you don't want it nagging you, turn off automatic nagging^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hupdate.

Re: Firefox Update

* Smylers [2008-01-03T07:01:20] > I've already told the computer to start Firefox; it then interupted that > to do something updatey of its own accord, so even the concept of > finishing something isn't really in my mind. And that's the only > enabled button on the win

Re: Firefox Update

Surely this can be simplified to: [I'm feeling lucky] -- Chris Devers

Re: Firefox Update

You forgot the buttons... Are you not unsure you want to delete Firefox? [Not unsure] [Not not unsure][Cancel] On Jan 3, 2008 3:46 PM, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: > On Jan 3, 2008 4:30 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote: > > H.Merijn Brand wrote: > > > On Thu, 3 Jan 2

Re: Firefox Update

t; >> [Abort] [Retry] [Cancel] [Panic] > > > > Do you want to Cancel the update? > > > > [Cancel] [Cancel] > > Are you sure you want to delete Firefox? > [Unsure] [Not Unsure] > You meant Are you n

Re: Firefox Update

ant to Cancel the update? > > [Cancel] [Cancel] Are you sure you want to delete Firefox? [Unsure] [Not Unsure] -- Ahh email, my old friend. Do you know that revenge is a dish that is best served cold? And it is very cold on the Internet!

Re: Firefox Update

* H.Merijn Brand [2008-01-03 22:05]: > Do you want to Cancel the update? > > [Cancel] [Cancel] Error: update completed successfully. [OK] [Cancel] [Cancel] Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis //

Re: Firefox Update

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:52:42 -0500 (EST), Chris Devers wrote: > On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: > > > [Skip] [Defer] [Ignore] [Cancel] > > [Abort] [Retry] [Cancel] [Panic] Do you want to Cancel the update? [Cancel] [Cancel] -- H.Merijn Brand Ams

Re: Firefox Update

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: > [Skip] [Defer] [Ignore] [Cancel] [Abort] [Retry] [Cancel] [Panic] -- Chris Devers

Re: Firefox Update

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Peter da Silva wrote: > On 2008-01-03, at 14:06, Chris Devers wrote: > > I don't remember an option for "don't update"; you only have a choice as > > to whether or not to defer the action, e.g. [skip version] etc. > > Um, that's that [later] means. "Don't update now, we'll ask

Re: Firefox Update

[Skip] [Defer] [Ignore] [Cancel] On Jan 3, 2008 3:40 PM, Chris Devers wrote: > > On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Peter da Silva wrote: > > > On 2008-01-03, at 14:06, Chris Devers wrote: > > > I don't remember an option for "don't update"; you only have a choice as > > > to whether or not to defer the action,

Re: Firefox Update

-update systems, but *ahem* this solves that problem, eh? >> Firefox has been updated. >> [OK] [Cancel] > > The meaning of [OK] is obvious, but [Cancel] isn't. > > Does it mean "un-update Firefox"? > > Or does it mean "I

Re: Firefox Update

> > > > Firefox has been updated. > > [OK] [Cancel] > > The meaning of [OK] is obvious, but [Cancel] isn't. > > Does it mean "un-update Firefox"? > > Or does it mean "I'd rather not use it at all than use t

Re: Firefox Update

On 2008-01-03, at 14:06, Chris Devers wrote: I don't remember an option for "don't update"; you only have a choice as to whether or not to defer the action, e.g. [skip version] etc. Um, that's that [later] means. "Don't update now, we'll ask you again later".

Re: Firefox Update

On 2008-01-03, at 13:48, Michael G Schwern wrote: Firefox has been updated. [OK] [Cancel] Hateful! Firefox has been updated. Click Restart to continue using Firefox. [Restart] [Quit] This would actually be useful. I may just want to quit

Re: Firefox Update

is solves that problem, eh? > > Firefox has been updated. > [OK] [Cancel] The meaning of [OK] is obvious, but [Cancel] isn't. Does it mean "un-update Firefox"? Or does it mean "I'd rather not use it at all than use the new version"? C

Re: Firefox Update

Chris Devers wrote: > We can't have these things happening without *some* kind of user > intervention in the process, can we? People always seem to howl about > silent self-update systems, but *ahem* this solves that problem, eh? Firefox has been update

Re: Firefox Update

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, demerphq wrote: > On 03/01/2008, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: > > On Jan 3, 2008 7:01 AM, Smylers wrote: > > > demerphq writes: > > > > > > > On 03/01/2008, Smylers wrote: > > > > > > > > > "Click Finish t

Re: Firefox Update

On 03/01/2008, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: > On Jan 3, 2008 7:01 AM, Smylers wrote: > > demerphq writes: > > > > > On 03/01/2008, Smylers wrote: > > > > > > > "Click Finish to continue starting Firefox." > > > > > >

Re: Firefox Update

On Jan 3, 2008 7:01 AM, Smylers wrote: > demerphq writes: > > > On 03/01/2008, Smylers wrote: > > > > > "Click Finish to continue starting Firefox." > > > > > > I'm not entirely sure how I'd've phrased that, but surely, _sur

Re: Firefox Update

Smylers wrote: > "Click Finish to continue starting Firefox." > > I'm not entirely sure how I'd've phrased that, but surely, _surely_, > when you want to indicate starting something there must be a better verb > to use than 'finish'? Perhaps

Re: Firefox Update

demerphq writes: > On 03/01/2008, Smylers wrote: > > > "Click Finish to continue starting Firefox." > > > > I'm not entirely sure how I'd've phrased that, but surely, _surely_, > > when you want to indicate starting something there must

Re: Firefox Update

On 03/01/2008, Smylers wrote: > "Click Finish to continue starting Firefox." > > I'm not entirely sure how I'd've phrased that, but surely, _surely_, > when you want to indicate starting something there must be a better verb > to use than 'finish&#x

Firefox Update

"Click Finish to continue starting Firefox." I'm not entirely sure how I'd've phrased that, but surely, _surely_, when you want to indicate starting something there must be a better verb to use than 'finish'? Smylers

firefox

Dear F word Moving my mouse across the firefox window is not an excuse to jump to the front. Never. I don't care if you want to permit flash to have that functionality. Things should stay stacked the way I wanted. Nicholas Clark

Re: Firefox updater hate

Not entirely related, but while we're hating on Firefox anyways, I just got this nice gem from it: http://castle.maeyanie.com/Screenshot-6.png Uhhh... WTF?

Re: Firefox updater hate

On 14-Nov-2007, at 13:45, Timothy Knox wrote: Somewhere on Shadow Earth, at Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 12:23:14PM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote: If you were on UNIX, then Firefox may be hatefully using Windows behavior inappropriately. That's a bug. No, I was on Mac OS X, same as you. In this

Re: Firefox updater hate

lt, hitting return is > >normally > >interpreted as though the user had pressed that button. > > Is this Firefox hate or Windows hate? > > In Windows at least, "space" means "hilighted button", "return" means > "OK" (or other "

  1   2   >