On Monday 01 May 2006 10:50 pm, Alexander Skwar wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Sunday 30 April 2006 08:47 am, Alexander Skwar wrote: > >> wu chuanwen wrote: > >> > 2006/4/30, Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > that is (AFAIK) just a layer below TCP/IP. > > Wrong. Besides: "just a layer below TCP/IP" makes no sense. > TCP/IP is a protocol family. Two of those members are IPv4 > and IPv6. Now, what's "just a layer below TCP/IP" supposed > to mean?
I didn't know. I'm not a network programmer. I will be sometime when I get the time to read up on it all, but until then, it was just a educated guess. > > I wouldn't > > remove it if I were you. > > Why not? Why leave in things, which are not needed and which > are known to possibly cause problems? For me the "Why not?" is the part that I can't answer. I don't know what it does, therefore I don't mess around with it. Furthermore, I have never heard of it causing problems. > >> Try a blank Firefox profile. To create one, run "firefox > >> -ProfileManager". > > > > I don't see how that would help anything. > > It would help, if the problem is on his side, caused by bad > settings in his profile. If everything's faster with a blank > profile, he knows for sure, that the problems were caused > by his old profile. I've never *ever* heard of a profile being corrupted. I'd be very surprised if that's the case. Nonetheless, it is a good idea, if a bit debatable in the likelihood it fixing the problem at hand. > Alexander Skwar > -- > It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees. I'd beg to differ.
pgpf46bNQ8RhF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
