Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

jim wrote: On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:51:38 -0800, Rufus in mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote: I guess this doesn't surprise me. Just one more example of the interface not being in step with the code...now I can't trust what I see in about:config or what it actually does either? Thanks. But has

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Bill Davidsen wrote: Rufus wrote: jim wrote: On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:15:20 -0800, Rufus in mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote: Jens Hatlak wrote: Leonidas Jones wrote: [JS in MailNews] As I am sure you know, but for those who do not, in about:config: javascript.allow.mailnews Set to true.

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

On 10-01-08 3:40 PM, Phillip Jones wrote: Robert Kaiser wrote: Phillip Jones schrieb: The head of Google is so mad at the head of Googles' recent statement that privacy and security is of little concern to Google, That he has recommended that anyone that uses Mozilla Not to use Google and use B

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Robert Kaiser wrote: Phillip Jones schrieb: The head of Google is so mad at the head of Googles' recent statement that privacy and security is of little concern to Google, That he has recommended that anyone that uses Mozilla Not to use Google and use Bing instead. Not sure what the head of Go

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Phillip Jones schrieb: The head of Google is so mad at the head of Googles' recent statement that privacy and security is of little concern to Google, That he has recommended that anyone that uses Mozilla Not to use Google and use Bing instead. Not sure what the head of Google has against the h

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 08:54:00 -0500, Leonidas Jones wrote: > Philip Chee wrote: >> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:54:43 -0500, Leonidas Jones wrote: >> >>> But then, how would a novice user even know that about:config even >>> exists, if not for the advice of a knowledgeable user, or reading a >>> detailed

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Philip Chee wrote: On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:54:43 -0500, Leonidas Jones wrote: But then, how would a novice user even know that about:config even exists, if not for the advice of a knowledgeable user, or reading a detailed Knowledge Base article? Seems to me its not exactly the kind of thing one

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Rufus wrote: jim wrote: On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:15:20 -0800, Rufus in mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote: Jens Hatlak wrote: Leonidas Jones wrote: [JS in MailNews] As I am sure you know, but for those who do not, in about:config: javascript.allow.mailnews Set to true. That won't have any ef

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Philip Chee wrote: On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:54:43 -0500, Leonidas Jones wrote: But then, how would a novice user even know that about:config even exists, if not for the advice of a knowledgeable user, or reading a detailed Knowledge Base article? Seems to me its not exactly the kind of thing o

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Philip Chee wrote: On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:54:43 -0500, Leonidas Jones wrote: But then, how would a novice user even know that about:config even exists, if not for the advice of a knowledgeable user, or reading a detailed Knowledge Base article? Seems to me its not exactly the kind of thing one

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:51:38 -0800, Rufus in mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote: >>> I guess this doesn't surprise me. Just one more example of the >>> interface not being in step with the code...now I can't trust what I see >>> in about:config or what it actually does either? >>> >>> Thanks. >>

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:54:43 -0500, Leonidas Jones wrote: > But then, how would a novice user even know that about:config even > exists, if not for the advice of a knowledgeable user, or reading a > detailed Knowledge Base article? > > Seems to me its not exactly the kind of thing one just stum

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Leonidas Jones wrote: Rufus wrote: jim wrote: On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:15:20 -0800, Rufus in mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote: Jens Hatlak wrote: Leonidas Jones wrote: [JS in MailNews] As I am sure you know, but for those who do not, in about:config: javascript.allow.mailnews Set to true.

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Rufus wrote: jim wrote: On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:15:20 -0800, Rufus in mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote: Jens Hatlak wrote: Leonidas Jones wrote: [JS in MailNews] As I am sure you know, but for those who do not, in about:config: javascript.allow.mailnews Set to true. That won't have any ef

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

jim wrote: On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:15:20 -0800, Rufus in mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote: Jens Hatlak wrote: Leonidas Jones wrote: [JS in MailNews] As I am sure you know, but for those who do not, in about:config: javascript.allow.mailnews Set to true. That won't have any effect. JS in Ma

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:15:20 -0800, Rufus in mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote: >Jens Hatlak wrote: >> Leonidas Jones wrote: [JS in MailNews] >>> As I am sure you know, but for those who do not, in about:config: >>> >>> javascript.allow.mailnews >>> >>> Set to true. >> >> That won't have any

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:36:32 -0500, jim in mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote: >On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:03:31 -0800, NoOp in >mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote: > > >> but having the ability to quickly change >>path/user enmass in prefs.js is what enables me to easily transport an >>entire .mozilla fo

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:36:21 -0800, NoOp in mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote: >On 12/31/2009 01:35 PM, NoOp wrote: >> On 12/31/2009 01:33 PM, NoOp wrote: >> ... >>> match. For example if machine 1 user is named GGxG in prefs.js: >> >> Sorry, should be "is named Bill in prefs.js" > >Argh... anyway

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

On 12/31/2009 01:35 PM, NoOp wrote: > On 12/31/2009 01:33 PM, NoOp wrote: > ... >> match. For example if machine 1 user is named GGxG in prefs.js: > > Sorry, should be "is named Bill in prefs.js" Argh... anyway you get the picture. >> >> C:\\Documents and Settings\\Jim\\Application >> Data\\Moz

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

On 12/31/2009 01:33 PM, NoOp wrote: ... > match. For example if machine 1 user is named GGxG in prefs.js: Sorry, should be "is named Bill in prefs.js" > > C:\\Documents and Settings\\Jim\\Application > Data\\Mozilla\\Profiles\\default\\ > > But machine 2's user is named Bill, I just do a mass se

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

On 12/31/2009 09:36 AM, jim wrote: > On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:03:31 -0800, NoOp in > mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote: > > >> but having the ability to quickly change >>path/user enmass in prefs.js is what enables me to easily transport an >>entire .mozilla folder to another machine & have it worki

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:03:31 -0800, NoOp in mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote: > but having the ability to quickly change >path/user enmass in prefs.js is what enables me to easily transport an >entire .mozilla folder to another machine & have it working in a matter >of minutes. Machine 1: WIn XP

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

MCBastos wrote: Interviewed by CNN on 29/12/2009 18:16, Robert Kaiser told the world: Rufus schrieb: ...maybe just "Toolbar Items"? Or "Personal Toolbar Items"? What I have thought about is "Personal Bookmark Items", which is about as long as the current one and goes better in line with the c

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:20:42 +0100, Robert Kaiser wrote: > On the other hand, it's not that broadly spread knowledge so probably > pretty advanded anyhow. And about:config is already hidden, you only get > it by entering it manually and acknowleding a warning (though people > didn't understand

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Robert Kaiser wrote: NoOp wrote: Perhaps not the masses; but having the ability to quickly change path/user enmass in prefs.js is what enables me to easily transport an entire .mozilla folder to another machine& have it working in a matter of minutes. Sure, that's the power of text-based and

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

MCBastos wrote: Interviewed by CNN on 29/12/2009 18:16, Robert Kaiser told the world: Rufus schrieb: ...maybe just "Toolbar Items"? Or "Personal Toolbar Items"? What I have thought about is "Personal Bookmark Items", which is about as long as the current one and goes better in line with the c

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

MCBastos wrote: Interviewed by CNN on 29/12/2009 18:16, Robert Kaiser told the world: Rufus schrieb: ...maybe just "Toolbar Items"? Or "Personal Toolbar Items"? What I have thought about is "Personal Bookmark Items", which is about as long as the current one and goes better in line with the cu

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Interviewed by CNN on 29/12/2009 18:16, Robert Kaiser told the world: > Rufus schrieb: >> ...maybe just "Toolbar Items"? Or "Personal Toolbar Items"? > > What I have thought about is "Personal Bookmark Items", which is about > as long as the current one and goes better in line with the current na

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

NoOp wrote: Perhaps not the masses; but having the ability to quickly change path/user enmass in prefs.js is what enables me to easily transport an entire .mozilla folder to another machine& have it working in a matter of minutes. Sure, that's the power of text-based and/or easy-to-read storin

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

On 12/29/2009 05:13 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote: > Daniel schrieb: >> Us masses should not even be, directly, touching prefs.js!! Make the >> changes in user.js and let SM copy them into prefs.js!! > > Right, you shouldn't touch prefs.js - the masses should also never touch > or have a user.js at all

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:20:42 +0100, Robert Kaiser in mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote: > (though people >didn't understand the warning wanting to be somewhat funny). > >Robert Kaiser At least one person found it worth an audible laugh -- me. The idea of voiding a warranty on something that was

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Robert Kaiser wrote: Rufus schrieb: ...maybe just "Toolbar Items"? Or "Personal Toolbar Items"? What I have thought about is "Personal Bookmark Items", which is about as long as the current one and goes better in line with the current name of the toolbar, though still pointing to bookmarks.

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Phillip Jones schrieb: How about some type of switch for average user and expert user. Expert user would be as now allows User.js files and working with about:config. Th Average user mode would have no ability to create a USER.js or and about:config would be hidden. Big switches are often UI fa

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Rufus schrieb: ...maybe just "Toolbar Items"? Or "Personal Toolbar Items"? What I have thought about is "Personal Bookmark Items", which is about as long as the current one and goes better in line with the current name of the toolbar, though still pointing to bookmarks. Maybe even just "Per

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:41:22 -0500, Phillip Jones in mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote: >How about some type of switch for average user and expert user. Expert >user would be as now allows User.js files and working with about:config. >Th Average user mode would have no ability to create a USER.js

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Rubens wrote: Phillip Jones wrote, on 2009-12-29 13:41: Robert Kaiser wrote: Daniel schrieb: Us masses should not even be, directly, touching prefs.js!! Make the changes in user.js and let SM copy them into prefs.js!! Right, you shouldn't touch prefs.js - the masses should also never touch o

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Robert Kaiser wrote: Rufus schrieb: ...shame on Firefox, then. Why? I could see calling it "Toolbar Bookmark Items", though. That would be wrong grammar. They are items in the toolbar that represent bookmarks, or items in the bookmark toolbar ("Personal Toolbar" is a bad and confusing na

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Robert Kaiser wrote: Leonidas Jones schrieb: I suspect its a labeling mismatch, probably due to the difference in naming between SM and FF. In SM it has always been the Personal Toolbar, going back to Moz Suite days, in FF, its been the Bookmarks toolbar as long as I can remember. Yes, it's pr

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Phillip Jones wrote, on 2009-12-29 13:41: Robert Kaiser wrote: Daniel schrieb: Us masses should not even be, directly, touching prefs.js!! Make the changes in user.js and let SM copy them into prefs.js!! Right, you shouldn't touch prefs.js - the masses should also never touch or have a user.j

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Robert Kaiser wrote: Daniel schrieb: Us masses should not even be, directly, touching prefs.js!! Make the changes in user.js and let SM copy them into prefs.js!! Right, you shouldn't touch prefs.js - the masses should also never touch or have a user.js at all, though (IMHO, we even should remo

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Robert Kaiser wrote: Leonidas Jones schrieb: I suspect its a labeling mismatch, probably due to the difference in naming between SM and FF. In SM it has always been the Personal Toolbar, going back to Moz Suite days, in FF, its been the Bookmarks toolbar as long as I can remember. Yes, it's pr

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Robert Kaiser wrote: Daniel schrieb: Us masses should not even be, directly, touching prefs.js!! Make the changes in user.js and let SM copy them into prefs.js!! Right, you shouldn't touch prefs.js - the masses should also never touch or have a user.js at all, though (IMHO, we even should remo

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Daniel schrieb: Us masses should not even be, directly, touching prefs.js!! Make the changes in user.js and let SM copy them into prefs.js!! Right, you shouldn't touch prefs.js - the masses should also never touch or have a user.js at all, though (IMHO, we even should remove that "feature" as

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Rufus schrieb: ...shame on Firefox, then. Why? I could see calling it "Toolbar Bookmark Items", though. That would be wrong grammar. They are items in the toolbar that represent bookmarks, or items in the bookmark toolbar ("Personal Toolbar" is a bad and confusing name for new users), so

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Rufus schrieb: Oh - and with 2.0.1, the previous grayed out "empty" items in my Bookmarks list under 2.0 went away. We fixed that Mac-specific bug in the update, yes. I think we even mentioned that in the release notes. Robert Kaiser ___ support-se

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Leonidas Jones schrieb: I suspect its a labeling mismatch, probably due to the difference in naming between SM and FF. In SM it has always been the Personal Toolbar, going back to Moz Suite days, in FF, its been the Bookmarks toolbar as long as I can remember. Yes, it's probably connected to th

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:50:38 +1100, Daniel in mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote: >> I would not tell the elderly lady across the street to open prefs.js in >> her favorite editor (as if she had one or knew what it was), > >...but she *IS* part of "the masses", so she is exactly whom you *ARE* >adv

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

jim wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:48:31 +1100, Daniel in mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote: fel wrote: On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:16:19 -0800, Rufus in mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote: I understand the risks involved with fooling around with about:config if one doesn't know what one is doing...

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Phillip Jones wrote: Rufus wrote: Leonidas Jones wrote: Rufus wrote: Leonidas Jones wrote: Rufus wrote: Rufus wrote: Stefan wrote: Rufus skriver: Stefan wrote: Rufus skriver: /snip/ /snip/ I suspect its a labeling mismatch, probably due to the difference in naming between SM and FF.

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:48:31 +1100, Daniel in mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote: >fel wrote: >> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:16:19 -0800, Rufus in >> mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote: >> >>> I understand the risks involved with fooling around with about:config if >>> one doesn't know what one is doing...

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Philip Chee wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 14:14:55 -0800, Leonidas Jones wrote: I suspect its a labeling mismatch, probably due to the difference in naming between SM and FF. In SM it has always been the Personal Toolbar, going back to Moz Suite days, in FF, its been the Bookmarks toolbar as long

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Rufus wrote: Leonidas Jones wrote: Rufus wrote: Leonidas Jones wrote: Rufus wrote: Rufus wrote: Stefan wrote: Rufus skriver: Stefan wrote: Rufus skriver: /snip/ /snip/ I suspect its a labeling mismatch, probably due to the difference in naming between SM and FF. In SM it has always be

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Leonidas Jones wrote: Rufus wrote: Leonidas Jones wrote: Rufus wrote: Leonidas Jones wrote: Rufus wrote: Rufus wrote: Stefan wrote: Rufus skriver: Stefan wrote: Rufus skriver: /snip/ /snip/ I suspect its a labeling mismatch, probably due to the difference in naming between SM and FF.

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Philip Chee wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 14:14:55 -0800, Rufus wrote: But now I'm curious - in my Bookmarks the folder is called Personal Toolbar Folder, and in the Customize menu it's called Bookmarks Toolbar Items - hence my previous confusion on a quick glance. Is that because I migrated my P

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Rufus wrote: Leonidas Jones wrote: Rufus wrote: Leonidas Jones wrote: Rufus wrote: Rufus wrote: Stefan wrote: Rufus skriver: Stefan wrote: Rufus skriver: /snip/ /snip/ I suspect its a labeling mismatch, probably due to the difference in naming between SM and FF. In SM it has always be

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...how/hide

Philip Chee wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 14:14:55 -0800, Leonidas Jones wrote: I suspect its a labeling mismatch, probably due to the difference in naming between SM and FF. In SM it has always been the Personal Toolbar, going back to Moz Suite days, in FF, its been the Bookmarks toolbar as long

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 14:14:55 -0800, Leonidas Jones wrote: > I suspect its a labeling mismatch, probably due to the difference in > naming between SM and FF. In SM it has always been the Personal > Toolbar, going back to Moz Suite days, in FF, its been the Bookmarks > toolbar as long as I can r

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 14:14:55 -0800, Rufus wrote: > But now I'm curious - in my Bookmarks the folder is called Personal > Toolbar Folder, and in the Customize menu it's called Bookmarks Toolbar > Items - hence my previous confusion on a quick glance. Is that because > I migrated my Profile from

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Leonidas Jones wrote: Rufus wrote: Leonidas Jones wrote: Rufus wrote: Rufus wrote: Stefan wrote: Rufus skriver: Stefan wrote: Rufus skriver: /snip/ /snip/ I suspect its a labeling mismatch, probably due to the difference in naming between SM and FF. In SM it has always been the Persona

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Rufus wrote: Leonidas Jones wrote: Rufus wrote: Rufus wrote: Stefan wrote: Rufus skriver: Stefan wrote: Rufus skriver: /snip/ /snip/ I suspect its a labeling mismatch, probably due to the difference in naming between SM and FF. In SM it has always been the Personal Toolbar, going back t

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Leonidas Jones wrote: Rufus wrote: Rufus wrote: Stefan wrote: Rufus skriver: Stefan wrote: Rufus skriver: /snip/ I just looked at it again and tried dragging it out to make sure - it was then that I noted I'd confused "Bookmarks Toolbar Items" for "Bookmarks". All is well on that one...

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Rufus wrote: Rufus wrote: Stefan wrote: Rufus skriver: Stefan wrote: Rufus skriver: /snip/ I just looked at it again and tried dragging it out to make sure - it was then that I noted I'd confused "Bookmarks Toolbar Items" for "Bookmarks". All is well on that one... I found a workaround

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Rufus wrote: Stefan wrote: Rufus skriver: Stefan wrote: Rufus skriver: I also noted not long ago that setting sizes for the Navigation and Personal Toolbars is a bit strange/non-intuitive - when it comes to setting button size. I like large buttons in the Nav bar, and small ones in the Perso

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Stefan wrote: Rufus skriver: Stefan wrote: Rufus skriver: I also noted not long ago that setting sizes for the Navigation and Personal Toolbars is a bit strange/non-intuitive - when it comes to setting button size. I like large buttons in the Nav bar, and small ones in the Personal bar...but

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Rufus wrote: Stefan wrote: Rufus skriver: I also noted not long ago that setting sizes for the Navigation and Personal Toolbars is a bit strange/non-intuitive - when it comes to setting button size. I like large buttons in the Nav bar, and small ones in the Personal bar...but the Customize opt

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Rufus skriver: Stefan wrote: Rufus skriver: I also noted not long ago that setting sizes for the Navigation and Personal Toolbars is a bit strange/non-intuitive - when it comes to setting button size. I like large buttons in the Nav bar, and small ones in the Personal bar...but the Customize o

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Stefan wrote: Rufus skriver: I also noted not long ago that setting sizes for the Navigation and Personal Toolbars is a bit strange/non-intuitive - when it comes to setting button size. I like large buttons in the Nav bar, and small ones in the Personal bar...but the Customize option changes bo

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Rufus skriver: I also noted not long ago that setting sizes for the Navigation and Personal Toolbars is a bit strange/non-intuitive - when it comes to setting button size. I like large buttons in the Nav bar, and small ones in the Personal bar...but the Customize option changes both - once you c

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Stefan wrote: Rufus skriver: Stefan wrote: Rufus skriver: Then there was the whole of the new default "more Mac-like" interface...I was only able to tolerate that about four days, then I replaced it with the other "Modern" one. And I'm a Mac user...I do have to say, the folks on Thunderbird d

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Rufus skriver: Stefan wrote: Rufus skriver: Then there was the whole of the new default "more Mac-like" interface...I was only able to tolerate that about four days, then I replaced it with the other "Modern" one. And I'm a Mac user...I do have to say, the folks on Thunderbird did a way better

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

NoOp wrote: On 12/25/2009 05:09 PM, Rufus wrote: NoOp wrote: ... What if you grandmother would like to use SM because you recommended it? Or your 3rd grade aged nephew? Actually, my 89 y.o. grandmother, her 60 y.0. live-in nurse, my 2nd grade nephew, and multiple relatives that haven't the

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

On 12/25/2009 05:09 PM, Rufus wrote: > NoOp wrote: ... > >>> What if you grandmother would like to use SM because you recommended it? >>> Or your 3rd grade aged nephew? >> >> Actually, my 89 y.o. grandmother, her 60 y.0. live-in nurse, my 2nd >> grade nephew, and multiple relatives that haven'

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Stefan wrote: Rufus skriver: Then there was the whole of the new default "more Mac-like" interface...I was only able to tolerate that about four days, then I replaced it with the other "Modern" one. And I'm a Mac user...I do have to say, the folks on Thunderbird did a way better job making a Ma

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Rufus skriver: Then there was the whole of the new default "more Mac-like" interface...I was only able to tolerate that about four days, then I replaced it with the other "Modern" one. And I'm a Mac user...I do have to say, the folks on Thunderbird did a way better job making a Mac-like Mac pres

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Phillip Jones wrote: fel wrote: On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:16:19 -0800, Rufus in mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote: I understand the risks involved with fooling around with about:config if one doesn't know what one is doing...workarounds are fine for experienced users, but not for the masses. Abs

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Phillip Jones wrote: Rufus wrote: Phillip Jones wrote: fel wrote: On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:16:19 -0800, Rufus in mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote: I understand the risks involved with fooling around with about:config if one doesn't know what one is doing...workarounds are fine for experience

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

NoOp wrote: On 12/25/2009 04:07 PM, Rufus wrote: ... ...your interface should be "dumbed down" to accommodate the "dumbest" user that you are targeting your product to, or that you expect would possibly want to try your product. Simpler is better, useful instructive information provided is al

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

On 12/25/2009 04:39 PM, NoOp wrote: > On 12/25/2009 04:07 PM, Rufus wrote: > ... >> >> ...your interface should be "dumbed down" to accommodate the "dumbest" >> user that you are targeting your product to, or that you expect would >> possibly want to try your product. Simpler is better, useful

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Rufus wrote: Phillip Jones wrote: fel wrote: On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:16:19 -0800, Rufus in mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote: I understand the risks involved with fooling around with about:config if one doesn't know what one is doing...workarounds are fine for experienced users, but not for th

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

On 12/25/2009 04:07 PM, Rufus wrote: ... > > ...your interface should be "dumbed down" to accommodate the "dumbest" > user that you are targeting your product to, or that you expect would > possibly want to try your product. Simpler is better, useful > instructive information provided is alway

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Phillip Jones wrote: fel wrote: On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:16:19 -0800, Rufus in mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote: I understand the risks involved with fooling around with about:config if one doesn't know what one is doing...workarounds are fine for experienced users, but not for the masses. Abs

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

fel wrote: On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:16:19 -0800, Rufus in mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote: I understand the risks involved with fooling around with about:config if one doesn't know what one is doing...workarounds are fine for experienced users, but not for the masses. Absolutely. Us masses ju

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

fel wrote: On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:16:19 -0800, Rufus in mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote: I understand the risks involved with fooling around with about:config if one doesn't know what one is doing...workarounds are fine for experienced users, but not for the masses. Absolutely. Us masses ju

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:16:19 -0800, Rufus in mozilla.support.seamonkey wrote: >I understand the risks involved with fooling around with about:config if >one doesn't know what one is doing...workarounds are fine for >experienced users, but not for the masses. Absolutely. Us masses just make ou

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Robert Kaiser wrote: Rufus schrieb: ...hmmnnn...I recall asking for some common sense some time ago...still waiting, it seems... Common sense just doesn't apply to the Internet, it only works in secured working areas. Robert Kaiser ...and here I was thinking that it was just usenet... --

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Robert Kaiser wrote: Rufus schrieb: ...hmmnnn...I recall asking for some common sense some time ago...still waiting, it seems... Common sense just doesn't apply to the Internet, it only works in secured working areas. Robert Kaiser Good answer Robert -- Stan Gondek Multi Path Communi

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Rufus schrieb: ...hmmnnn...I recall asking for some common sense some time ago...still waiting, it seems... Common sense just doesn't apply to the Internet, it only works in secured working areas. Robert Kaiser ___ support-seamonkey mailing list su

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Jens Hatlak schrieb: I think it is on for RSS, and that's also what the first link I provided said ("for news feeds JavaScript is enabled"). If that's not true that's probably a bug and even then it might already be fixed on trunk (2.1pre). It is on for feed content, those are web docshells, it

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Bill Davidsen wrote: Rufus wrote: David Wilkinson wrote: Philip Chee wrote: Well it's back partially (or going to be back partially) but only for *non* mailnews content such as RSS feeds and other third party contentTabs (in Thunderbird). Yes, I think it is important to allow different setti

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Rufus wrote: Just been looking over the user options between the two, and I have to say that as far as the user is concerned, 1.1.18 had/has far more user flexibility for configuration, far more informative dialog boxes, buttons I could actually use, and with few exceptions behaved as I wanted

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

NoOp wrote: about:config javascript.allow.mailnews;false set to true. You might want to look into prefbar; it essentially is a front end (and more) to about:config settings. You can add your own buttons, and could add a button to toggle that setting with a single click. http://prefbar.mozdev.o

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Daniel wrote: One wonders why there is that screen warning about fiddling with "about:config", if the average user is now expected to do things in "about:config"?? Doing things in about:config is like fiddling with the registry in Windows. It has the potential for vast changes in behavior, g

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Rufus wrote: David Wilkinson wrote: Philip Chee wrote: Well it's back partially (or going to be back partially) but only for *non* mailnews content such as RSS feeds and other third party contentTabs (in Thunderbird). Yes, I think it is important to allow different settings for RSS and mailn

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

In , Phillip Jones wrote: > Rather that take out features because a few very few consider it a > Risk. Use common sense. allow the users decide. This doesn't have to do with people simply considering javascript to be a risk. It has to do with

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

David Wilkinson wrote: > Jens Hatlak wrote: >> That won't have any effect. JS in MailNews is gone for good: >> >> >> The reason that the pref is still appearing in about:config is that the >> relevant patch applies against core code which follow

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

David Wilkinson wrote: Philip Chee wrote: Well it's back partially (or going to be back partially) but only for *non* mailnews content such as RSS feeds and other third party contentTabs (in Thunderbird). Yes, I think it is important to allow different settings for RSS and mailnews. Persona

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Phillip Jones wrote: NoOp wrote: On 12/22/2009 06:39 PM, Phillip Jones wrote: NoOp wrote: ---snip--- But apparently do not understand the risks associated with html and javascript in emails. You can of course choose to ignore the default settings& SeaMonkey/a

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

Phillip Jones wrote: Rather that take out features because a few very few consider it a Risk. Use common sense. allow the users decide. Up until it was banned there has always been a choice in the the preferences all the way back to the beginning of communicator and possibly Netscape Navigator 3.

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

NoOp wrote: On 12/22/2009 08:37 PM, NoOp wrote: On 12/22/2009 06:39 PM, Phillip Jones wrote: NoOp wrote: ---snip--- But apparently do not understand the risks associated with html and javascript in emails. You can of course choose to ignore the default settings

Re: SM 2.0.1 vs 1.1.18...again...

NoOp wrote: On 12/22/2009 06:39 PM, Phillip Jones wrote: NoOp wrote: ---snip--- But apparently do not understand the risks associated with html and javascript in emails. You can of course choose to ignore the default settings& SeaMonkey/about:config allows you

  1   2   >