[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
Aha. If you don't know, why are you then making suggestions?
I'm not a network programmer.
Me neither. And there's no need to be one.
> 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.
And because of that, you're contradicting?
Furthermore, I have never heard of it causing problems.
Well, you don't read much, do you?
>> 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.
Okay, you actually do not read much. I'm rather active in the
german Mozilla newsgroups, and the far majority of problems is
caused by profile issues.
But why are you saying: "I don't see how that would help anything."?
I'd be very surprised
if that's the case.
I wouldn't be.
Nonetheless, it is a good idea,
Yep.
if a bit debatable
No, not at all. It's the first step. If something's broken, reset it
to a known good state. And that's what a blank profile is.
Alexander Skwar
--
If your bread is stale, make toast.
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
