Rob wrote:
Daniel wrote:
Rob wrote:
Daniel wrote:
Rob wrote:
Daniel wrote:
Rob wrote:
Daniel wrote:
Not wanting to get picky-picky (because of the work you do for us SM
users) but reading between the lines here, does this imply that hidden
prefs don't (necessarily) do anything, or did
Daniel wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>> Daniel wrote:
>>> Rob wrote:
Daniel wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>> Daniel wrote:
>>> Not wanting to get picky-picky (because of the work you do for us SM
>>> users) but reading between the lines here, does this imply that hidden
>>> prefs don't (ne
Rob wrote:
Daniel wrote:
Rob wrote:
Daniel wrote:
Rob wrote:
Daniel wrote:
Not wanting to get picky-picky (because of the work you do for us SM
users) but reading between the lines here, does this imply that hidden
prefs don't (necessarily) do anything, or did you just mis-type "hidden"
r
Daniel wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>> Daniel wrote:
>>> Rob wrote:
Daniel wrote:
> Not wanting to get picky-picky (because of the work you do for us SM
> users) but reading between the lines here, does this imply that hidden
> prefs don't (necessarily) do anything, or did you just mis-t
Rob wrote:
Daniel wrote:
Thanks for this, Jim. So it would seem that, sometimes, when I add a
pref, I am, indeed, adding it, whilst on other occasions when I add a
pref, I am, indeed, just making it visible!
No. It does not work like that.
You may be confused by the fact that there is also
Rob wrote:
Daniel wrote:
Rob wrote:
Daniel wrote:
Not wanting to get picky-picky (because of the work you do for us SM
users) but reading between the lines here, does this imply that hidden
prefs don't (necessarily) do anything, or did you just mis-type "hidden"
rather than "absent"??
You
Daniel wrote:
> Thanks for this, Jim. So it would seem that, sometimes, when I add a
> pref, I am, indeed, adding it, whilst on other occasions when I add a
> pref, I am, indeed, just making it visible!
No. It does not work like that.
You may be confused by the fact that there is also a "defa
Daniel wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>> Daniel wrote:
>>> Not wanting to get picky-picky (because of the work you do for us SM
>>> users) but reading between the lines here, does this imply that hidden
>>> prefs don't (necessarily) do anything, or did you just mis-type "hidden"
>>> rather than "absent"??
>
Jim Taylor wrote:
Daniel wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
Jens Hatlak wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
Hartmut Figge wrote:
I do not have a xul.mfasl in my default profile, because
nglayout.debug.disable_xul_cache is set to true there. You may check
your setting for this pref.
No such pref i
Daniel wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
Jens Hatlak wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
Hartmut Figge wrote:
I do not have a xul.mfasl in my default profile, because
nglayout.debug.disable_xul_cache is set to true there. You may check
your setting for this pref.
No such pref in my about:config (
Rob wrote:
Daniel wrote:
Not wanting to get picky-picky (because of the work you do for us SM
users) but reading between the lines here, does this imply that hidden
prefs don't (necessarily) do anything, or did you just mis-type "hidden"
rather than "absent"??
You have to understand that in a
Daniel wrote:
> Not wanting to get picky-picky (because of the work you do for us SM
> users) but reading between the lines here, does this imply that hidden
> prefs don't (necessarily) do anything, or did you just mis-type "hidden"
> rather than "absent"??
You have to understand that in about
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
Jens Hatlak wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
Hartmut Figge wrote:
I do not have a xul.mfasl in my default profile, because
nglayout.debug.disable_xul_cache is set to true there. You may check
your setting for this pref.
No such pref in my about:config (Win7 Pro SP1 64
13 matches
Mail list logo
