On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 15:42 +, Beartooth wrote:
Also, dragging one file (or many, or all) from the folder on the
CD to one on the hard drive would copy, not move -- i.e., not remove
from the CD -- even though the same action would move (not copy) the
file if I did it between most hard
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:21:53 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
[...]
If you just burned the files to CD, then copied them, you wound up with
READ ONLY copies. That is likely the cause of the problems you
encountered.
That much has always been true -- in the sense that, if for
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:03:44 +, I Beartooth wrote:
I'm running Firefox under F8 and F9 on five different machines, and it's
a pain on every one of them, albeit in slightly different ways; but the
differences differ, too.
The first thing they have in common is that it takes forever
Beartooth wrote, On 10/08/2008 12:49 PM:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:03:44 +, I Beartooth wrote:
I'm running Firefox under F8 and F9 on five different machines, and it's
a pain on every one of them, albeit in slightly different ways; but the
differences differ, too.
The first thing
Todd Denniston wrote:
Beartooth wrote, On 10/08/2008 12:49 PM:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:03:44 +, I Beartooth wrote:
I'm running Firefox under F8 and F9 on five different machines, and
it's
a pain on every one of them, albeit in slightly different ways; but the
differences differ, too.
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 6:49 AM, Beartooth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Why should there *be* permissions trouble with a file or folder,
belonging to user btth on one machine, burned to CD by that user,
inserted into another machine, then dragged and dropped by the same user
into some
Beartooth wrote:
[...]
I had noticed a new problem with the pix, but hadn't thought to
check for it with FEBE : a lot of files a/o folders would show up in
nautilus with a padlock emblem. Lo and behold, the extension folders, and
some others, were littered all over with those blasted
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 18:00:09 +, I Beartooth wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 12:54:11 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
[]
If you want to set up a new Firefox correctly and reasonably securely
(for certain values of correct and secure, of course), read my article
here:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:05:48 + (UTC)
Beartooth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
warning: /etc/squid/squid.conf.default saved as /etc/squid/
squid.conf.default.rpmsave
warning: /etc/squid/squid.conf saved as /etc/squid/squid.conf.rpmsave
Removed: squid.i386 7:3.0.STABLE7-1.fc9
Complete!
[EMAIL
On Sun, 2008-10-05 at 18:00 +, Beartooth wrote:
FATAL: Could not determine fully qualified hostname. Please set
'visible_hostname'
I don't know what a qualified hostname is, fully or not.
There's plenty of places on the WWW that explain that, but here goes.
A hostname is the
Tim wrote:
The process of working it out *CAN* be done like this. I am gonzales
lookup this to find my IP, I find I am 192.168.1.11. Okay, now lets
lookup 192.168.1.11 (a reverse lookup) to find my FQDN, and I get told
that I'm gonzales.example.com., and that's the end of that story.
I
Tim:
The process of working it out *CAN* be done like this. I am gonzales
lookup this to find my IP, I find I am 192.168.1.11. Okay, now lets
lookup 192.168.1.11 (a reverse lookup) to find my FQDN, and I get told
that I'm gonzales.example.com., and that's the end of that story.
Timothy
On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:41:52 +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Tim wrote:
The process of working it out *CAN* be done like this. I am gonzales
lookup this to find my IP, I find I am 192.168.1.11. Okay, now lets
lookup 192.168.1.11 (a reverse lookup) to find my FQDN, and I get told
that I'm
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 12:54:11 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
[]
If you want to set up a new Firefox correctly and reasonably securely
(for certain values of correct and secure, of course), read my article
here:
http://www.melvilletheatre.com/articles/squid-privoxy/index.html
You can
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 18:00:09 + (UTC)
Beartooth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe I'm just outta my depth here. I have to say that config
file would take me years of effort just to read through.
It only takes a second to run a text search on squid.conf, you don't have to
read the whole
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 18:00:09 + (UTC)
Beartooth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But
I went to your site, copied the sample squid config file, installed
squid, cd'd root to /etc/squid, moved squid.conf.default to a backup,
created a new one with nano -w squid.conf.default, and copied your
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 12:48:29 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 18:00:09 + (UTC) Beartooth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Maybe I'm just outta my depth here. I have to say that config
file would take me years of effort just to read through.
It only takes a second to run a
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 12:53:02 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
If I'm following this, I think you have a file named squid.conf.default
but no file named squid.conf?
The file should be named squid.conf. Not squid.conf.default. Just copy
the example file to /etc/squid/squid.conf. That's all.
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 19:46:11 + (UTC)
Beartooth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ hostname
Hbsk2.localdomain
That's your hostname. Specify that hostname in your squid.conf file and see
what happens.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
DRY
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 14:36:18 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ hostname
Hbsk2.localdomain
That's your hostname. Specify that hostname in your squid.conf file and
see what happens.
Where in squid.conf??
I just kept telling nano ^W till it looped -- and found
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 20:53:30 + (UTC)
Beartooth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where in squid.conf??
FATAL: Could not determine fully qualified hostname. Please set
'visible_hostname'
Meanwhile, I went ahead with your other directions, including
setting a network proxy (which
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 20:53:30 +, I Beartooth wrote:
Meanwhile, I went ahead with your other directions, including
setting a network proxy (which I've never looked at, let alone used) --
and now none of my browsers connect. I feel like Mickey Mouse fighting
brooms
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 21:00:09 + (UTC)
Beartooth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Galeon and Epiphany don't connect.
That's because you either told them to use the proxy (that isn't currently
running) or because they use the desktop proxy setting that you may or may not
have set.
Opera and Dillo
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 14:59:09 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
visible_hostname
That section talks about error messages, and about the output of
something called gethostname, which I don't seem to have. I don't see the
relevance.
I tried blindly adding a line -- so that the passage now
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 21:11:46 + (UTC)
Beartooth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That section talks about error messages, and about the output of
something called gethostname, which I don't seem to have. I don't see the
relevance.
squid.conf is a CONFIGURATION FILE that happens to have a
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 15:17:28 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
squid.conf is a CONFIGURATION FILE that happens to have a lot of
instructions for use embedded in it. Everything that starts with a #
sign is a remark and is ignored by the program.
Yes, I understand the use of # in commenting
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:16:14 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Sun, 2008-09-28 at 18:42 +, I Beartooth wrote:
[]
I'm getting confused as between machines, which is which; but
Firefox has come up with another little nasty trick on at least two of
them : when it does
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:27:14 +, Beartooth wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:10:56 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
[...]
None of the things you complain about have happened to me in several
years of using Firefox (basically since version 1), so I'm inclined to
think it's something in
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:49:54 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:25:02 + (UTC) Beartooth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
But I *think* two of them are down to about fifty each,
Fifty extensions? Wow.
My Firefox currently has 8 extension installed and I don't think I'm
really
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 06:20:46PM +, Beartooth wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:49:54 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:25:02 + (UTC) Beartooth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
But I *think* two of them are down to about fifty each,
Fifty extensions? Wow.
My
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:03:44 +, Beartooth wrote:
I'm running Firefox under F8 and F9 on five different machines, and it's
a pain on every one of them, albeit in slightly different ways; but the
differences differ, too.
The first thing they have in common is that it takes forever
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 18:20:46 + (UTC)
Beartooth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NoScript, noreferrer, adblock, flashblock, redirect remover,
Some of these are redundant. For example, Noscript can block flash, so you
don't need flashblock if you have noscript installed. And so on. I'm less
than
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Beartooth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:03:44 +, Beartooth wrote:
I'm running Firefox under F8 and F9 on five different machines, and it's
a pain on every one of them, albeit in slightly different ways; but the
differences differ, too.
On Sun, 2008-09-28 at 18:42 +, Beartooth wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:03:44 +, Beartooth wrote:
I'm running Firefox under F8 and F9 on five different machines, and it's
a pain on every one of them, albeit in slightly different ways; but the
differences differ, too.
The
Beartooth wrote:
I'm getting confused as between machines, which is which; but
Firefox has come up with another little nasty trick on at least two of
them : when it does launch, it does so in offline mode -- and then
complains because it can't refresh various sites.
Surely there has to be
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:06:45 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 19:43 +, Beartooth wrote:
All right, at least, at last, we get down to it. What is a
reasonable number of extensions to run? I.e., a number that will still
keep Firefox fast and stable?
That's
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:25:02 + (UTC)
Beartooth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I *think* two of them are down to about fifty each,
Fifty extensions? Wow.
My Firefox currently has 8 extension installed and I don't think I'm really
missing out on anything.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:05:17 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:32:16 + (UTC) Beartooth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Aaarrgg : I update firefox more days than not.
Why would you do that?
Very simple -- I'm talking about what the firefox updater calls
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:43:28 + (UTC)
Beartooth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Very simple -- I'm talking about what the firefox updater calls
updates : i.e., new releases of any or several add-ons, *not* new
releases of Firefox itself.
If you remove the extraneous language packs as I
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:02:53 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:43:28 + (UTC) Beartooth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[]
What else am I supposed to call them, instead of what Firefox
itself calls them??
I would call it updating a Firefox add-on or extension.
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:43:48 + (UTC)
Beartooth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there any way to identify, or even guess, which ones are prime
candidates for jettisoning?
Everything that you don't actually need would be a good place to start.
Go through the list and uninstall the un-necessary
On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 19:43 +, Beartooth wrote:
All right, at least, at last, we get down to it. What is a
reasonable number of extensions to run? I.e., a number that will
still
keep Firefox fast and stable?
That's like asking how long is a piece of string, since everyone's
I'm running Firefox under F8 and F9 on five different machines,
and it's a pain on every one of them, albeit in slightly different ways;
but the differences differ, too.
The first thing they have in common is that it takes forever to
launch -- when it does launch. The second
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 15:03 +, Beartooth wrote:
I try to keep it as nearly standardized as I can. The best way
is
to add FEBE to any new install of Firefox, and then copy in a FEBE
folder
by scp or sneakermail, and run a restore.
What's FEBE?
poc
--
fedora-list mailing list
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 15:03 +, Beartooth wrote:
I'm running Firefox under F8 and F9 on five different machines,
and it's a pain on every one of them, albeit in slightly different ways;
but the differences differ, too.
The first thing they have in common is that it takes
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 15:03 +, Beartooth wrote:
I try to keep it as nearly standardized as I can. The best way
is
to add FEBE to any new install of Firefox, and then copy in a FEBE
folder
by scp or sneakermail, and run a restore.
What's
Frank Cox wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:14:10 -0700
Craig White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find all of the language extensions to be pointless for my usage but I
can't tell if it's because my system/profile has existed for quite some
time and has been upgraded from like FC-4, FC-5, etc.
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:58:10 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 15:03 +, Beartooth wrote:
I try to keep it as nearly standardized as I can. The best way
is
to add FEBE to any new install of Firefox, and then copy in a FEBE
folder
by scp or sneakermail, and
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:17:56 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
After doing a Firefox upgrade or install, I always crank up Firefox as
root and delete all of the languages (and the dom-inspector thing).
Firefox runs much faster after that.
I adopted your practice, with thanks; but it kept
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:09:28 + (UTC)
Beartooth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I adopted your practice, with thanks; but it kept putting them
back.
Now I see only disable buttons instead of uninstall -- I hope
at least disabling lasts longer.
That's because you didn't run firefox
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:14:10 -0700, Craig White wrote:
[...]
slow startup is because Firefox looks at all installed extensions to
determine whether an update is available and then Firefox looks to see
if a newer version of Firefox is available. The more extensions, the
longer the
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 19:33 +, Beartooth wrote:
*Something* has to be done. Firefox is a fine browser when it
runs; but getting it to run is within a hair of not being worth it any
more.
None of the things you complain about have happened to me in several
years of using Firefox
Frank Cox wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:09:28 + (UTC)
Beartooth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I adopted your practice, with thanks; but it kept putting them
back.
Now I see only disable buttons instead of uninstall -- I hope
at least disabling lasts longer.
That's
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:22:34 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:09:28 + (UTC) Beartooth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I adopted your practice, with thanks; but it kept putting them
back.
Now I see only disable buttons instead of uninstall -- I hope
at least disabling
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:10:56 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
[...]
None of the things you complain about have happened to me in several
years of using Firefox (basically since version 1), so I'm inclined to
think it's something in your environment or add-ons.
Oh good. That's
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:10:16 + (UTC)
Beartooth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll try it once more. And dollars to doughnuts they all come
back. Probably the very next time I update Firefox; certainly when I
upgrade my OS.
They will, when you update Firefox. The language packs are
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:57:16 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:10:16 + (UTC) Beartooth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'll try it once more. And dollars to doughnuts they all come
back. Probably the very next time I update Firefox; certainly when I
upgrade my OS.
They
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 21:32 +, Beartooth wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:57:16 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:10:16 + (UTC) Beartooth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'll try it once more. And dollars to doughnuts they all come
back. Probably the very next time I
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 22:59 +, Beartooth wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:45:52 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 21:32 +, Beartooth wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:57:16 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
[]
The language packs are part of
the Firefox rpms.
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:32:16 + (UTC)
Beartooth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aaarrgg : I update firefox more days than not.
Why would you do that? Firefox updates are relatively few (at least, not more
than once every couple of months or so). There's no need or purpose served by
60 matches
Mail list logo
