Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Ortwin Glück wrote: > > Looking at the bug statistics at > > >http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/reports.cgi?product=-All-&output=show_chart&datasets=NEW%3A&datasets=ASSIGNED%3A&datasets=REOPENED%3A&datasets=UNCONFIRMED%3A&links=1&banner=1 > They should pull that down, it just makes Mozilla look bad

Re: Moral high ground?

Christian Biesinger wrote: > > JTK wrote: > > AOL users pay for AOL's "service", correct? "Instant Messaging(tm)" is > > part of that service, correct? > > You can use AIM without being an AOL customer. > If I am an AOL customer, can I use this "Trillian" and not have to look at spam I mean ad

[OT] The forefront of computer technology?

Sorry for the OT post (although given some of the shit posted here) but I think this is has to be seen to be believed. Someone built a working DAT tape loader from Lego. http://homepage.mac.com/brother_lizardo/PhotoAlbum3.html Regards, Parish.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

"dman84" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > but you don't have to figure in all the variables that mozilla has to > deal with, do you have any idea how many protocals, standards, and > platforms issues that mozilla has to deal with for you get a dec

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

"Travis Crump" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > And I suppose your software is designed to run on 8+ operating systems > each of which has its own expectations for how a UI should intuitively > work, isn't lacking any conceivable feature, and is d

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

DeMoN LaG wrote: > > NNTP-Posting-Host: r-185.181.alltel.net > X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 123.minneapolis-05-10rs.mn.dial-access.att.net > > Post from a few weeks ago: > NNTP-Posting-Host: 157.minneapolis-01-02rs.mn.dial-access.att.net > > Either JTK did/did not take his medication this morning, or

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

On Sun, 03 Feb 2002 13:18:17 +0100, Ortwin Glück <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :Looking at the bug statistics at :http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/reports.cgi?product=-All-&output=show_chart&datasets=NEW%3A&datasets=ASSIGNED%3A&datasets=REOPENED%3A&datasets=UNCONFIRMED%3A&links=1&banner=1 :Bugs are takin

Re: #1 Mozilla Problem - back and forwards

On Sun, 03 Feb 2002 16:20:58 -0800, tradervik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :I checked this out on my high powered PC at work (1Ghz, 512 Mb, NT) and :noticed :something interesting: :Total page re-display time for IE and Moz seems about the same (about a :second). :Moz may even be a little bit fas

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dman84 wrote: > Chris, that is where I come in. I have a project that I'd like to start > after mozilla's 1.0 codebase is API fixed.. to then create a new bugzill > a tool.. that will help this problem. I need to learn the programming > of the XUL & XML, and pr

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

The Posting One wrote: > Every application we write at my place of employment for one. > > The number of users does not matter. Bugs should be decreasing at a faster > rate than new code being put in. Otherwise, there's no end to the madness. Note: A "bug" in Mozilla can be - a duplicate bug re

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Chris Hoess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 03 Feb 2002: > The headers seem slightly...odd. If this is sarcasm, it's not like > JTK to be so subtle about it. > Last post: Path: secnews.netscape.com!not-for-mail From: JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgro

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

dman84 wrote: > Chris, that is where I come in. I have a project that I'd like to start > after mozilla's 1.0 codebase is API fixed.. to then create a new bugzill > a tool.. that will help this problem. I need to learn the programming > of the XUL & XML, and probably how all the XPCOM & XPAPPS,

Re: Pls Test: Moz.097 + IE6 + NT-SP - Crash+repair

Bill wrote: > Um, folks, this is a potential ATI problem, someone with an ATI needs to > confirm the failure. > > Alas I have no ATI cards, so I cannot confirm or deny this issue either, > but I am familiar with the type of problem. I don't see any issue on my machine. I see light grey horizo

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jonas Jørgensen wrote: > JTK wrote: > >> I don't say it too much for fear they'll get >> lazy, but Mozilla really is the best browser to come along in a long time. > > I'm confused. > The headers seem slightly...odd. If this is sarcasm, it's not like JTK to b

It's a Latin Orgy! PLUS How can he do it with a schlong that big?

  February 3, 2002 You won't believeyour eyes! Hear your fantasiescome alive Instant access to hotamateur webcam action Want to get lucky???Play with them!!!48 Puzzle Pieces GET A FREE PASS

Re: Pls Test: Moz.097 + IE6 + NT-SP - Crash+repair

Um, folks, this is a potential ATI problem, someone with an ATI needs to confirm the failure. Alas I have no ATI cards, so I cannot confirm or deny this issue either, but I am familiar with the type of problem.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Jonas Jørgensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 03 Feb 2002: > I'm confused. I believe the world has gone backwards. Pats win, JTK says something nice about Mozilla I wonder if a bus load of cheerleaders are going to bust into my house right n

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:3C5DB7AD.6578A3D7 @hgdjaggd.com, on 03 Feb 2002: > the cache bug, Sorry, I don't recall you "fixing" this one, just bitching for a week when a 30 second "Edit, Preferences, Advanced, Cache, Clear disk cache" would have fixed it for you. Do you have a bug

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Chris, that is where I come in. I have a project that I'd like to start after mozilla's 1.0 codebase is API fixed.. to then create a new bugzill a tool.. that will help this problem. I need to learn the programming of the XUL & XML, and probably how all the XPCOM & XPAPPS, Tools & Widgets st

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

but you don't have to figure in all the variables that mozilla has to deal with, do you have any idea how many protocals, standards, and platforms issues that mozilla has to deal with for you get a decent browser? it may not be a million-lines of code, but I'd like to see your million-lines of

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

The number of bugs has skyrocketed over the years because the number of people reporting them has skyrocketed over the years, and because we have more features and components than we used to. Statistics corroborate this. You seem to be suggesting that developers get worse over time and start

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Blake Ross wrote: > > Fact: you are terribly misinformed. > > The number of bugs has skyrocketed over the years because the number of > people reporting them has skyrocketed over the years, and because we > have more features and components than we used to. Statistics > corroborate this. You s

Re: #1 Mozilla Problem - back and forwards

I checked this out on my high powered PC at work (1Ghz, 512 Mb, NT) and noticed something interesting: Total page re-display time for IE and Moz seems about the same (about a second). Moz may even be a little bit faster. However, when you press forward/back in IE, the page immediately changes

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

And I suppose your software is designed to run on 8+ operating systems each of which has its own expectations for how a UI should intuitively work, isn't lacking any conceivable feature, and is designed to handle malformed/error-filled/intentionally malicious input in a way other than rejectin

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ortwin Glück wrote: > Looking at the bug statistics at > > >http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/reports.cgi?product=-All-&output=show_chart&datasets=NEW%3A&datasets=ASSIGNED%3A&datasets=REOPENED%3A&datasets=UNCONFIRMED%3A&links=1&banner=1 > > Bugs are taking over! > > F

Re: How can I import all my newsgoups from another Moz profile?

And it came to pass that Al Rider wrote: > I'm one of the @Home to Comcast conversionees, if there is > such a word. > > Anyhow, I had to set up an new profile to order to change > the mail settings. But, that's another story. > > Now I'd like to simply import or copy all my newsgroups > [abo

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote: > I don't say it too much for fear they'll get > lazy, but Mozilla really is the best browser to come along in a long time. I'm confused. -- Hvis svaret er Anders Fogh er spørgsmålet dumt.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Ortwin Glück wrote: > If you do not act now you will be lost in completely fucked-up code that > needs (again) a complete rewrite from scratch. Mozilla will be developed > to death if you do not care. Do you know your peril? WHOA there buddy. Now, Maozilla may be chock full 'o' bugs, but it's not

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

The Posting One wrote: >> You sure can show me a project where the number of new bugs decreases >> while the number of users increases, hmm? > > Every application we write at my place of employment for one. > > The number of users does not matter. Bugs should be decreasing at a > faster rate

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Christian Biesinger wrote: > > The Posting One wrote: > > The number of users does not matter. Bugs should be decreasing at a faster > > rate than new code being put in. Otherwise, there's no end to the madness. > > You do realize that many of the new bugs are enhancements, not real bug > report

Irresponsible IRC administration on irc.mozilla.org

They seem to have banned the most important dialup provider from Argentina. I'm seeing: -irc.mozilla.org- *** Banned: spammer (2001/11/23 21.31) Ok, there might have been a spam mail from somebody at "Ciudad Digital" on november last year, but blocking half of a country is stupid and silly. E

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

The Posting One wrote: > The number of users does not matter. Bugs should be decreasing at a faster > rate than new code being put in. Otherwise, there's no end to the madness. You do realize that many of the new bugs are enhancements, not real bug reports? -- "They that can give up essential

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Perhaps if he did, the fries wouldn't be soggy all the time like every Wendy's in my area. It is a perfectly reasonable attitude after a project has been going on for 5 years. It is simply inexcusable for a simple piece of software like a web browser to be taking scores of man-years to develop wi

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Every application we write at my place of employment for one. The number of users does not matter. Bugs should be decreasing at a faster rate than new code being put in. Otherwise, there's no end to the madness. "Sören Kuklau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL P

How can I import all my newsgoups from another Moz profile?

I'm one of the @Home to Comcast conversionees, if there is such a word. Anyhow, I had to set up an new profile to order to change the mail settings. But, that's another story. Now I'd like to simply import or copy all my newsgroups [about 40] to the new profile. How can I do this? Moz has i

JTK has no life NEEDS YOUR HELP

Please talk to JTk he needs something to make him feel alive again!

Re: Moral high ground?

DeMoN LaG wrote: > I don't understand the controversy over > this. MS does the same thing with Hotmail's proprietary interface, and > with MSN Messanger, why doesn't anyone complain about that? > Alternative clients can communicate with MSN Messenger clients just fine and I haven't heard any

Re: Moral high ground?

Nigel L appends:     jesus X wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]"> ...if they could make alltheir money and charge $4.95 a month, they'd do it to get a huge market share.And even if they do both but don't have to, what's wrong with that? They're abusiness, and do so to make money. They lock out unauthor

Re: MOz 0.9.8

CSL wrote: > Fulvio, > > Try this near final 0.9.8. It is 99.999% final according to asa. > > http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/latest-0.9.8/ > > Fulvio Perini wrote: > >> alpha wrote: >> >> >> > 0.9.7 was released on the day the roadmap did stat it was to be >> > released. >> > But 0.9.

Re: what is the keyboard shortcut for tabbed browsing?

Tom Hatta wrote: > Not talking about the search tabs etc. on the left, but tabbed browsing > that allows multiple browsing in one window like Opera. > Ctrl-T opens a new tab. Ctrl-Pg{Up,Down} cycles through the open tabs. Is that what you wanted to know? Regards, Parish > -- Software is l

what is the keyboard shortcut for tabbed browsing?

Not talking about the search tabs etc. on the left, but tabbed browsing that allows multiple browsing in one window like Opera.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Ortwin Glück <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:3C5D2A89.8050206 @odi.BLOCKSPAM.ch, on 03 Feb 2002: > If I were a Mozilla project manager I would suggest: > And I'm sure there are a *ton* of people here in the groups and working on Mozilla that are glad you *aren't* a project manager. I wouldn

Re: #1 Mozilla Problem

CeeJay wrote: > Nobody Special wrote: > >> "Back" and "Forward" >> "Back" and "Forward" >> "Back" and "Forward" >> >> Sure, Mozilla can load a page the *first* time pretty fast, but hit >> the "back" or "forward" buttons to re-display a page, and Mozilla >> takes forever! > > > > I don't ex

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Ortwin Glück wrote: > Looking at the bug statistics at > > >http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/reports.cgi?product=-All-&output=show_chart&datasets=NEW%3A&datasets=ASSIGNED%3A&datasets=REOPENED%3A&datasets=UNCONFIRMED%3A&links=1&banner=1 > > > Bugs are taking over! > > Fact: > The number of bugs is

Re: Moral high ground?

JTK wrote: > No, as you just said, they do *both*. Why? Because they can, because > there are enough idiots willing to pay to see advertising in the world. No, they do both because they have to. I guarantee you if they could make all their money and charge $4.95 a month, they'd do it to get a h

Re: Anchor tags in NS 4

Please go to : for Mac Communicator general Questions for windows Communicator General Questions for Unix Communicator General Questions

Increase Your Ejaculation by 600%... Look Inside

New Medical break through has now created a revolutionary herbal pill that is guaranteed to increase your Semen and EJACULATION by almost 600% in just a few short weeks! - Increase Ejaculation by almost 600%! - Increase Sex drive - Stronger Erections - Longer Lasting Orgasms! - More Intense Orgas

Re: Anchor tags in NS 4

Rich wrote: > Adrienne wrote: > > > > Richard Bozman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > > > "Siôn" wrote: > > > > > >> Can anyone tell me if NS 4 supports Anchors (see example code @ bottom > > >> of page) and if not is there an alterntive > > >> > > >> Example code:

Re: Moral high ground?

On 3 Feb 2002 07:17:25 GMT, DeMoN LaG wrote: >Travis Crump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 03 Feb 2002: > >> The >> argument could even be made that clients like Everybuddy are adding >> value to AOL's network by allowing their client's users to conn

Re: Oh god, what is this BS on Tech TV?

On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 20:49:36 -0600, JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Mykel wrote: >> >> JTK wrote: >> >> > Randall Parker wrote: >> > >> >> I misread your subject title and thought it said B5 as in Babylon >> >> 5. >> >> Who cares about the fools that complain? My advice is tell all >> >> your >

Re: Oh god, what is this BS on Tech TV?

On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 00:47:17 -0600, JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Randall Parker wrote: >> >> I misread your subject title and thought it said B5 as in Babylon 5. >> >> Who cares about the fools that complain? My advice is tell all your > >...soon-to-be former... > >> friends to use Mozilla,

Re: Mozilla "hover tips" bug

On Fri, 01 Feb 2002 11:20:01 +0100, Jonas Jørgensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From that, we can conclude that *you* are working for AOL! For free!!! >OHMYGOD!!! THIS IS AN >AOL-TIME-WARNER-NETSACPE-JTKZILLA-EVIL-RED-COMMUNIST-NAZI-GARY-VAN-SICKLE-MICROSOFT-NBC-US-GOVERNMENT > >CONSPIRACY!

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Ortwin Glück wrote: > If you do not act now you will be lost in completely fucked-up code that > needs (again) a complete rewrite from scratch. Thanks for keeping it to a high language level. You sure can show me a project where the number of new bugs decreases while the number of users increa

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Ortwin Glück wrote: > Looking at the bug statistics at > > >http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/reports.cgi?product=-All-&output=show_chart&datasets=NEW%3A&datasets=ASSIGNED%3A&datasets=REOPENED%3A&datasets=UNCONFIRMED%3A&links=1&banner=1 > > > > Bugs are taking over! > > Fact: > The number of bugs is

Re: Moral high ground?

Christian Biesinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 03 Feb 2002: > JTK wrote: >> AOL users pay for AOL's "service", correct? "Instant >> Messaging(tm)" is part of that service, correct? > > You can use AIM without being an AOL customer. To add, you

Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Looking at the bug statistics at http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/reports.cgi?product=-All-&output=show_chart&datasets=NEW%3A&datasets=ASSIGNED%3A&datasets=REOPENED%3A&datasets=UNCONFIRMED%3A&links=1&banner=1 Bugs are taking over! Fact: The number of bugs is now three times as high as half a year ag

Re: Moral high ground?

JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 03 Feb 2002: > If I am (by some bizzarro-world freak > accident) an AOL subscriber, should I not have the option to use > whichever IM client I want to? And not have AOL's godforsaken ads > staring me in the face? Y

Re: Moral high ground?

JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 03 Feb 2002: >> I don't pay for AOL's service: > > Great! So you're not an AOL subscriber? No. If you had any idea how to check my headers, or read my signature, you'd see I'm an @home user who's ISP is transitio

Re: #1 Mozilla Problem

Nobody Special wrote: > "Back" and "Forward" > "Back" and "Forward" > "Back" and "Forward" > > Sure, Mozilla can load a page the *first* time pretty fast, but hit the > "back" or "forward" buttons to re-display a page, and Mozilla takes > forever! I don't experience that on my computer. Moz

Re: Moral high ground?

JTK wrote: > AOL users pay for AOL's "service", correct? "Instant Messaging(tm)" is > part of that service, correct? You can use AIM without being an AOL customer. -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Re: Mozilla Development

Rohit Tripathi wrote: > The OS I am developing currently has no TCP/IP support. I do not know > what changes must be made to mozilla source code to overcome this. How > do I go about creating a TCP/IP stack for it? How does mozilla use the > TCP/IP stack? Well, the different operating systems whi

Re: Moral high ground?

Chuck Simmons wrote: > > JTK wrote: > > > > DeMoN LaG wrote: > > > > > > Jason Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 02 Feb 2002: > > > > > > > applications to undermine their system? They have created their own > > > > IM network, and I think tha

Re: Moral high ground?

jesus X wrote: > > Chuck Simmons wrote: > > However, the TANSTAFL principle applies. You don't pay money and you > > learn to ignore ads. More than 50 years of commercial TV proves that it > > works. It's a no brainer that the same idea can work on the Internet. > > Indeed, TANSTAFL is the rule.

Re: Moral high ground?

DeMoN LaG wrote: > > Travis Crump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 03 Feb 2002: > > > The > > argument could even be made that clients like Everybuddy are adding > > value to AOL's network by allowing their client's users to connect > > with more peopl

Re: Moral high ground?

DeMoN LaG wrote: > > JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 02 Feb 2002: > > > Christ, this planet is populated with nothing but dumbasses I swear. > > For whatever reason, you pay for AOL's "service". Ok, fine. So you > > then think you should have ad