In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], N. Marshall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
The main reasons that she won't move to Mozilla are:
1. There is no way to file a bookmark straight into the correct folder
like you can in NS4.x.
F9 to open the sidebar, drag the link into the correct folder. It's not
the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
not all) internet-related Services, it offers many ways for people to
attempt to break into your OS X machine. Fortunately, Mac OS X also
And what, praytell, are these many ways? Does the article make any
Garth Wallace wrote:
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Garth Wallace wrote:
3) UNIX hasn't always been open source. Some versions still
aren't. GNU/Linux is open source, so are FreeBSD, NetBSD, and
And it came to pass that DeMoN LaG wrote:
Rob Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 02 Aug 2001:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Magnus Stenman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
To follow up (a bit late maybe) on the why I don't use
NN/Moz thread:
I
And it came to pass that DeMoN LaG wrote:
Christopher Jahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:Xns90F1D70752D9xjahn@ 204.29.187.152, on 02 Aug 2001:
And it came to pass that DeMoN LaG wrote:
Rob Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 02 Aug 2001:
Christopher Jahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:Xns90F1D70752D9xjahn@
204.29.187.152, on 02 Aug 2001:
And it came to pass that DeMoN LaG wrote:
Rob Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 02 Aug 2001:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Magnus Stenman
The main reasons that she won't move to Mozilla are:
1. There is no way to file a bookmark straight into the correct folder
like you can in NS4.x.
F9 to open the sidebar, drag the link into the correct folder. It's not
the same, but it gets the job done.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Magnus Stenman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes
To follow up (a bit late maybe) on the why I don't use NN/Moz thread:
I suspect a lot of people get irritated about the little tings
that actually were in 4.xx but magically disappeared in NN/Moz!
I would tend to agree with
Rob Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 02 Aug 2001:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Magnus Stenman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
To follow up (a bit late maybe) on the why I don't use NN/Moz
thread:
I suspect a lot of people get irritated about the
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Been reading up on the subject In MacWorld and MacAddict. Both suggest
that Unix has always more unsecure than the Mac Os-9 and lower. One
reason they suggest is the fact it been
still exists in the CVS, and if I wasn't so rusty
in C I'd put it back in myself!)
/magnus
Jerry Baker wrote:
I see that Mozilla and NN6 usage is still hovering somehwere just under
0.5%. Is there anyone investigating why?
--
Jerry Baker
Mark Anderson wrote:
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
Been reading up on the subject In MacWorld and MacAddict. Both suggest
that Unix has always more unsecure than the Mac Os-9 and lower. One
reason they suggest is the fact it been optimize for use on the inetrnet
and because its
Garth Wallace wrote:
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Been reading up on the subject In MacWorld and MacAddict. Both suggest
that Unix has always more unsecure than the Mac Os-9 and lower. One
reason they
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
not all) internet-related Services, it offers many ways for people to
attempt to break into your OS X machine. Fortunately, Mac OS X also
And what, praytell, are these many ways? Does the article make any attempt
to enumerate them at all?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why? What's the advantge if I've got to open a Email Client say Eudora,
Then I have to open a dedicate News program such as News Watcher (either
version), Then I have to open a Web Browser to show web pages.
* You get to choose the
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes I am Afraid of OS-X. Unlike 9 and Lower even if a individual likes
to poke around on my computer and do some pings. That all they can do.
That's an unhealthy delusion. If a person can run arbitrary code on your
system without your approval
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
Been reading up on the subject In MacWorld and MacAddict. Both suggest
that Unix has always more unsecure than the Mac Os-9 and lower. One
reason they suggest is the fact it been optimize for use on the inetrnet
and because its always been open source. They
IE renders a mess out of that page .
Nice. Done a Print Screen.
Do you know other sites IE fails to render ?
DeMoN LaG wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carlfish) wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 28 Jul 2001:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 22:23:01 -0500, Mr Bluster
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mircea Romantan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 30 Jul 2001:
IE renders a mess out of that page .
Nice. Done a Print Screen.
Do you know other sites IE fails to render ?
Used to have a screen shot of what IE 5.5 did to a page. It was a CNET
DeMoN LaG wrote:
Mircea Romantan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 30 Jul 2001:
IE renders a mess out of that page .
Nice. Done a Print Screen.
Do you know other sites IE fails to render ?
Used to have a screen shot of what IE 5.5 did to a page. It
And it came to pass that Henri Sivonen wrote:
-N6xx/Moz lacks many of the features found in NC4.xx. For
business and institutional installations, these features
are mission critical. (LDAP, .slt free installation,
Why is salting a problem? The right way to set up the
defaults is to
topposted - sorry -
I agree with N. Marshall:
Mozilla (even the latest nightlies) newsgroup readers is sadly lacking
in simple features, like a basic newsgroup name search engine, like a
simple mark groups read, like the ability to organize subscribed
groups in a prefered order, like
Jerry Baker wrote:
...
Apparently no one is investigating the poor adoption of Mozilla/NN6 at
all. I would be interested in working with anyone who wishes to assist
with creating a survey for NN4.X users to ascertain why they shun
Mozilla/NN6. I think it would be most telling.
...
Why
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christopher Jahn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It makes profile guesting impossible, or at least very
difficult.
What's profile guesting?
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.clinet.fi/~henris/
Profile Guesting I believe, means that a person not owning the computer
and go to profile Manager and open as a Guest and use communicator ,
tempoararily to log on to his/her own account. after the session
everything is lost.
Henri Sivonen wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christopher Jahn
Henri Sivonen wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christopher Jahn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-N6/6.01 were bug-ridden nightmares, especially Mail and News
-Mail News still not performing at reliable levels
Did tying the browser and the mailnews client together made sense in
the
I think its just a typo... What he meant was probably profile guesSing.
- Pratik.
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
Profile Guesting I believe, means that a person not owning the computer
and go to profile Manager and open as a Guest and use communicator ,
tempoararily to log on to his/her own
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
they say there is a Unix program called Brickhouse that can plug up all
the holes. But I believe I'll wait a while anyway.
Actually, Brickhouse is only a GUI configuration tool for ipfw. ipfw
ships with OS X.
(Yes, the shareware fee is
Matthew Thomas wrote:
Why bother? The main reason is blatantly obvious in both cases.
In Netscape's case, it's because they haven't yet released a version
which could seriously be accused (by anyone other than the Netscape
Marketing people) of being release quality.
And in the Mozilla
Henri Sivonen wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christopher Jahn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-N6/6.01 were bug-ridden nightmares, especially Mail and News
-Mail News still not performing at reliable levels
Did tying the browser and the mailnews client together made sense in
the
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christopher Jahn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-N6/6.01 were bug-ridden nightmares, especially Mail and News
-Mail News still not performing at reliable levels
Did tying the browser and the
Henri Sivonen wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
they say there is a Unix program called Brickhouse that can plug up all
the holes. But I believe I'll wait a while anyway.
Actually, Brickhouse is only a GUI configuration tool for ipfw. ipfw
ships with OS
Jerry Baker wrote:
[snip]
Do you think that Netscape's releases are going to hurt themselves? That
is to say that users will tire of trying each new Netscape release to
see if it is finally the one that is of release quality?
I seem to remember a story from my childhood, one about a boy
JTK wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christopher Jahn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-N6/6.01 were bug-ridden nightmares, especially Mail and News
-Mail News still not performing at reliable levels
Did tying the browser and the mailnews client together
Jay Garcia wrote:
Jerry Baker wrote:
Carlfish wrote:
3. Use it because they really, really prefer NN over Internet Explorer,
despite IE5+ being more stable, and rendering modern HTML better.
It is these users that intrigue me. It would seem to me, on the surface
anyway, that someone who
Mark Owen wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 12:16:28 -0600, Jerry Baker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see that Mozilla and NN6 usage is still hovering somehwere just under
0.5%. Is there anyone investigating why?
--
Jerry Baker
I use NN4.77 at home and work (a UK FE College). I haven't yet
Carlfish wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 22:23:01 -0500, Mr Bluster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
somehow managed to type:
Carlfish wrote:
IE renders standards-compliant websites better than NN. This is a simple
matter of fact - IE supports far more of the DOM and CSS standards than
NN4, even if it is
Jerry Baker wrote:
I see that Mozilla and NN6 usage is still hovering somehwere just under
0.5%. Is there anyone investigating why?
--
Jerry Baker
Apparently no one is investigating the poor adoption of Mozilla/NN6 at
all. I would be interested in working with anyone who wishes to assist
On Sun, 29 Jul 2001, Jerry Baker wrote:
Jerry Baker wrote:
I see that Mozilla and NN6 usage is still hovering somehwere just under
0.5%. Is there anyone investigating why?
Apparently no one is investigating the poor adoption of Mozilla/NN6 at
all.
Er.
Have you *tried* using NN6?
I
And it came to pass that Jerry Baker wrote:
Apparently no one is investigating the poor adoption of
Mozilla/NN6 at all.
Try reading netscape.public.beta.feedback.*
NC4.x users make it very clear why they haven't changed:
-N6/6.01 were bug-ridden nightmares, especially Mail and News
-Mail
And it came to pass that Christopher Jahn wrote:
And it came to pass that Jerry Baker wrote:
Apparently no one is investigating the poor adoption of
Mozilla/NN6 at all.
Try reading netscape.public.beta.feedback.*
NC4.x users make it very clear why they haven't changed:
-N6/6.01 were
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christopher Jahn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-N6/6.01 were bug-ridden nightmares, especially Mail and News
-Mail News still not performing at reliable levels
Did tying the browser and the mailnews client together made sense in
the first place? Does it make sense
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 22:23:01 -0500, Mr Bluster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
somehow managed to type:
Carlfish wrote:
IE renders standards-compliant websites better than NN. This is a simple
matter of fact - IE supports far more of the DOM and CSS standards than
NN4, even if it is still a light
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carlfish) wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 28 Jul 2001:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 22:23:01 -0500, Mr Bluster
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
somehow managed to type:
Carlfish wrote:
IE renders standards-compliant websites better than NN. This is a
simple matter
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 11:32:11 -0600, Jerry Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
somehow managed to type:
There are many with differing methods of keeping track of visitors. Even
if all of these different sites, and all of the different stats
applications they were running, were underestimating
Carlfish wrote:
-snip--
The vast majority of those people still using Navigator 4.x are those who:
1. Received it as part of their ISP package, use it because it was what
was given to them, and either do not know how to, or do not know they
can change.
2. Use it because of
Jerry Baker wrote:
Carlfish wrote:
3. Use it because they really, really prefer NN over Internet Explorer,
despite IE5+ being more stable, and rendering modern HTML better.
It is these users that intrigue me. It would seem to me, on the surface
anyway, that someone who prefered
Jerry Baker wrote:
Carlfish wrote:
3. Use it because they really, really prefer NN over Internet Explorer,
despite IE5+ being more stable, and rendering modern HTML better.
It is these users that intrigue me. It would seem to me, on the surface
anyway, that someone who prefered to
Jerry Baker wrote:
I see that Mozilla and NN6 usage is still hovering somehwere just under
0.5%. Is there anyone investigating why?
Hmmm, that does seem awfully high. Perhaps there are more techincally
literate psychos running around than any of us realize.
As for investigating why
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 12:16:28 -0600, Jerry Baker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see that Mozilla and NN6 usage is still hovering somehwere just under
0.5%. Is there anyone investigating why?
--
Jerry Baker
I use NN4.77 at home and work (a UK FE College). I haven't yet
transferred to Moz at home
On 27 Jul 2001 18:25:25 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carlfish) wrote:
3. Use it because they really, really prefer NN over Internet Explorer,
despite IE5+ being more stable, and rendering modern HTML bette
Please! Thats a matter of your opinion! You mean IE renders
frontpage web sites better?
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 23:52:56 GMT, Vadir Puovkin
VadirPuovkin[EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
On 27 Jul 2001 18:25:25 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carlfish) wrote:
3. Use it because they really, really prefer NN over Internet Explorer,
despite IE5+ being more stable, and rendering modern HTML bette
Jerry Baker wrote:
Carlfish wrote:
3. Use it because they really, really prefer NN over Internet Explorer,
despite IE5+ being more stable, and rendering modern HTML better.
It is these users that intrigue me. It would seem to me, on the surface
anyway, that someone who prefered to be a
N. Marshall wrote:
Jerry Baker wrote:
Carlfish wrote:
3. Use it because they really, really prefer NN over Internet Explorer,
despite IE5+ being more stable, and rendering modern HTML better.
It is these users that intrigue me. It would seem to me, on the surface
anyway, that someone who
I see that Mozilla and NN6 usage is still hovering somehwere just under
0.5%. Is there anyone investigating why?
--
Jerry Baker
Mozilla and NN6 usage is still hovering somehwere just under
0.5%.
What is the basis of that estimate?
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.clinet.fi/~henris/
56 matches
Mail list logo
