Newbie question

I hope this not a too obvious question... I made my best to look for answers on FAQ and so on but may not have searched on the good keywords. I have a customer who wish to distribute a browser along with HTML content on a CDROM for both Windows and Mac users. I would like to know if he could di

No /favicon.ico! (was: mozilla.org releases Mozilla 0.9.8)

Asa Dotzler wrote: > * Cards with addresses in the USA have a new Get Map button in the > card preview pane which creates a map for that address at > mapquest.com You can switch it to Yahoo Maps, which supports more countries. See my post to .mail-news about a month ago. > * Mozilla

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

DeMoN LaG wrote: > > JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], > on 04 Feb 2002: > > >> Say, is there any reason that you mention the 0.75% (that are > >> probably not even true) in each and every of your posts? > >> > > > > It is true, and I mention it often to

Mozilla becomes viable in 2007 (if the world stands still) (was: Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!)

Jason Johnston wrote: > > DeMoN LaG wrote: > > Actually it's a complete lie by JTK. He quoted a website that showed > > Mozilla had .75% market share. Last I checked, that same site shows > > 3.0% market share. > > Would you mind posting a link to that website here? I'd much appreciate > it.

Company Merger

Title: eNewsletter 2 YOU ARE RECEIVING THIS EMAIL BECAUSE YOU HAVE EXPRESSED INTEREST IN PRODUCTS THAT WE CAN SAVE YOU MONEY ON. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE REMOVED FROM OUR MAILING LIST PLEASE CLICK THE UNSUBSCRIBE LINK AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS EMAIL. WE CAN ASSURE YOU THAT YOU WILL BE REM

M 0.9.8 Net installer fails -- Linux

Hi, The Net installer fails soon after it starts downloading the *xpi files. It downloads approx. 750KB and the installation process dies with core dump (Linux). A message flashes for a moment, saying something like "Missing files" or so. The Full installer worked OK. -- Minko

Default paper size

Hello, is there a way to set the default paper size to a4? Mozilla doesn't remember a thing about the paper size. Thanx Christoph

Moz 0.9.8 completely fails for me

I just tried installing 0.9.8 on my Win2k machine -- over 0.9.7. When it ran 0.9.8 for the first time, it put up a blank (all gray) window, covering the entire screen. I tried starting it a few times, with the same result. I tried rebooting and starting -- same result. I then tried startin

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote: > Proper schmopper, it works on IE, NC4.7x, Opera (probably), but not on > Mozilla. Not on Mozilla. Not on Mozilla. Ihighly doubt that it works on Opera. I highly doubt that it would ever work on Opera. Those great guys from Norway working on Opera still didn't get around to imple

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote: > Even the code for that sweet AIM client? No. Nor do I contribute to that. Nor do I want to - it still doesn't have Message History, afaik. -- Regards, Sören Kuklau ('Chucker') [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Mozilla performance:Broadband vs. Dailup

I think it has more to do with the speed of the computer. Six months ago, I tried Mozilla on my old computer(166MHz, 32MB ram), and it was unusable to the point where even if there was a 100% performance improvement since then I think it would still be unusably slow(though I haven't tried it)

Mozilla performance:Broadband vs. Dailup

I have read/heard amny comments as to Mozilla's performance. Many people claim Mozilla is very slow. I know that DHTML is slow, but other than that I find Mozilla reasonably fast. But then I am connected to the internet by a broadband cable connection. My question is this: Does Mozilla have a

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

DeMoN LaG wrote: > Actually it's a complete lie by JTK. He quoted a website that showed > Mozilla had .75% market share. Last I checked, that same site shows > 3.0% market share. Would you mind posting a link to that website here? I'd much appreciate it. Thanks. --J

Company Merger

Title: eNewsletter 2 YOU ARE RECEIVING THIS EMAIL BECAUSE YOU HAVE EXPRESSED INTEREST IN PRODUCTS THAT WE CAN SAVE YOU MONEY ON. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE REMOVED FROM OUR MAILING LIST PLEASE CLICK THE UNSUBSCRIBE LINK AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS EMAIL. WE CAN ASSURE YOU THAT YOU WILL BE REM

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04 Feb 2002: >> Say, is there any reason that you mention the 0.75% (that are >> probably not even true) in each and every of your posts? >> > > It is true, and I mention it often to try to knock you guys back > dow

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04 Feb 2002: > God. I suppose you want me to code on punch cards too, huh? Mr. > LaG: IT'S 2002. WEB PAGES ARE NOT "CODE". WRITING HTML BY HAND > DOES NOT MAKE YOU A "PROGRAMMER". Yes, it is 2002. Web pages are

Re: browser statistics - mozilla 10%!

"Flo Ledermann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... http://www.hitboxcentral.com/cgi-bin/hbcntrl.cgi?c=/statmarket/archive/smf_1 _101701&ct=statmarket SAN DIEGO, CA - Oct. 17, 2001) WebSideStory, Inc. (www.websidestory.com), the world's leading provi

Re: Jesus_X == JTK? (was: Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!)

JTK wrote: > Why, jesus_x posts from alltel.net! H Why yes I do. Without going through everyone else's posts, I can only assume someone else does too. They're a fairly large telco, and they bought out the Navex internet service in the midwest recently, so I'm sure there's more than one A

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Christian Biesinger wrote: > JTK wrote: > >> 0.75% more people will be able to view your site! > > > Say, is there any reason that you mention the 0.75% (that are probably > not even true) in each and every of your posts? > It is true, and I mention it often to try to knock you guys back dow

Are You Paying Too Much for Life Insurance? PMKJMLW

  Term Quotes    Life Insurance Companies    Since 1996, term life insurance rates have been reduced by as much as 70%40 year old male - $250,000 - 10 year level termAs low as $10.45 per month!At TermQuotes Life Insurance Companies of America, we will survey the top life

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote: > No. But it appears you have taken quite a close look, huh rabbi? No, it's in big 12 point text in my news reader. for quite a long time I never understood why it was there, since you were ostensibly posting from home. Most ISPs don't add anything to newspost headers, so I figured it

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote: > So now the *updated* one breaks Opera. So the guy's gotta choose: do > more work to make it work with Mozilla, or do more work to make it work > with Opera. No, it dosen't work at all. The Updated (standard) script WOULD work on Opera, but their DOM support is worse than IE's. So it

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote: > > > So now the *updated* one breaks Opera. So the guy's gotta choose: do > more work to make it work with Mozilla, or do more work to make it work > with Opera. > Wrong. His choices are: 1) Do nothing. It will continue to work on MSIE and Netscape 4, but nothing else present

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

barney wrote: > JTK wrote: > >>Sören Kuklau wrote: >> >>>Because it's not proper W3C DOM. >>> >>Proper schmopper, it works on IE, NC4.7x, Opera (probably), but not on >>Mozilla. Not on Mozilla. Not on Mozilla. >> > > No, not on Opera. If Opera's DOM support was better, the updated script > w

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

barney wrote: > JTK wrote: > >>Sören Kuklau wrote: >> >>>Because it's not proper W3C DOM. >>> >>Proper schmopper, it works on IE, NC4.7x, Opera (probably), but not on >>Mozilla. Not on Mozilla. Not on Mozilla. >> > > No, not on Opera. If Opera's DOM support was better, the updated script > w

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Pratik wrote: [snip] >>> Yes. A mail similar but written in a much better way would be sent to >>> such webmasters. In the long run, updating their code would be >>> beneficial. >>> >>> >> >> Beneficial to whom? > > > To the webmasters so that they don't have to deal with emails saying > "B

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

jesus X wrote: > JTK wrote: > >>Huh, now I'm not Another Netscape Collabra Server User >> > > Have you ever looked at your headers? No. But it appears you have taken quite a close look, huh rabbi? > Every single one says "Organization: > Another Netscape Collabra Server User" > Huh, wond

Re: Anchor tags in NS 4

"Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T." wrote: > The reply was meant for any to read who are post Communicator questions > on Moz newsgroup. > > IF I offended you by posting in wrong portion of the thread my > appologies. :-( I hate cross posts myself and usually remove them, I saw they were all netscape bu

Re: Automatic favicon.ico requests

Blake Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... [somebody challenged, "How do you know people don't like favicons?" > > Yet you know they do? > I dunno about him. I know they do (the feature was requested by users). > Blake A bit of history - Clearest RFE: http://bugz

Jesus_X == JTK? (was: Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!)

Phil Anderton wrote: > "JTK" wrote: > >> WHOA there buddy. Now, Maozilla may be chock full 'o' bugs, but it's >> not THAT >> bad. Now, I'm the first person to say where the lizard needs help, but >> in the >> area of taking their time to do it right they have no problems. I got >> them to >> f

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

On 04/02/2002 at 18:28 JTK wrote: >DeMoN LaG wrote: >> A proprietary Netscape >> 4.x DOM that includes Document.layers, a proprietary IE DOM that >> includes document.all, and a W3C complient one that Mozilla implements. >> The problem is NONE of the browser support all 3. All of them, howev

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Ortwin Glück <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:3C5F213A.6070405 @odi.BLOCKSPAM.ch, on 04 Feb 2002: > chart. It always shows the same overall picture: bugs increase. > On the other hand there is another really interesting chart: No. Bugs do not increase. Bug *REPORTS* increase. If something ma

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

On 04/02/2002 at 22:02 Jonas Jørgensen wrote: >JTK wrote: > >> That was supposedly a DOM issue; Mozilla doesn't support the same DOMs >> that all other web browsers apparently do, and is therefore unable to >> render many of them properly. Oh well, I'm sure everybody will be >> willing to rew

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Thank you all for this very enlighting discussion. I read most of the postings and sometimes had to laught out real loud because they were too hilarious... There were many postings that shared part of my views and others that didn't. That indicates that at least I am not completely absurd. I k

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

DeMoN LaG wrote: > JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], > on 04 Feb 2002: > > >>That was supposedly a DOM issue; Mozilla doesn't support the same >>DOMs that all other web browsers apparently do, and is therefore >>unable to render many of them properly.

Re: Talkback.exe taking 100% of CPU?

The Company is called FullCircle that does Talkback. Travis Crump wrote: > > I reported a bug on this once and was told that talkback is a tool that > isn't being developed by Mozilla so this will never be fixed. > > David Gerard wrote: > > When talkback.exe is trying to send a talkback, it tak

Re: Anchor tags in NS 4

The reply was meant for any to read who are post Communicator questions on Moz newsgroup. IF I offended you by posting in wrong portion of the thread my appologies. :-( Ric Gates wrote: > > So why are you replying to me, I didn't start the thread. > Reply to the one that started the thread, as

Re: browser statistics - mozilla 10%!

Flo Ledermann wrote: cut > (i'm not sure, but i guess netscape 6.x is counted as netscape) > > of course these are all people in the academic system, and not > representative for the general public. (although probably the kind of > people most of the readers

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Chris (Sorry for not quoting that lengthy but very useful one.) I agree with you that it is very difficult to manage bug reporting in a way so that duplicates can be mostly avoided (as is with every system that processes mostly unstructured text entered by humans). Bugzilla certainly lacks a b

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

DeMoN LaG wrote: > I wonder if a bus load of cheerleaders are going > to bust into my house right now and say they need someplace to sleep for > the night now... Send them here. Plenty of space... :-) SCNR Ortwin

Re: #1 Mozilla Problem - back and forwards

On Mon, 04 Feb 2002 21:07:08 GMT, Jim Power <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :I would contend that this is more than perception. I would rather :have a page immediately show and then redraw a couple of times, even :if it is overall slower. I can get an idea of what I'm looking at, :visually scan for

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote: > And if you want it all, use IE. On Linux? And it's quite slow too. Mozilla feels more responsive on my machine than IE does. IE sortof "hangs" the machine for seconds sometimes when you click on a link. That is so annoying I tell you... but lets talk about Moz. Ortwin

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote: > 0.75% more people will be able to view your site! Say, is there any reason that you mention the 0.75% (that are probably not even true) in each and every of your posts? -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safe

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote: > Sören Kuklau wrote: >> >> Because it's not proper W3C DOM. > > Proper schmopper, it works on IE, NC4.7x, Opera (probably), but not on > Mozilla. Not on Mozilla. Not on Mozilla. No, not on Opera. If Opera's DOM support was better, the updated script would undoubtedly work, but i

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote: > Christian Biesinger wrote: >> the QNX version is version 5.something, > > > Mozilla run on QNX? To my knowledge, it does. > No Mac version? I'm sorry for forgetting it. However, you can either get an old, but final version (5.0) for MacOS <= 9.x, or a beta of an old version for

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

DeMoN LaG wrote: > For a browser that isn't even > marketed towards anyone other than developers and techies Well, alas it is. Bug reports are closed because developers think that either a feature is "too geeky". Alternatively, developers close bug reports because they rather annoy developers

Re: Content Type / Helper Applications

Christopher Walk wrote: > Content Type Header: "text/plain" > Content Disposition Header: "Attachment; filename=foo.txt" > I'd like the browser to prompt the user to save the file to disk in all > cases. Does anyone have a suggestion as to how I can accomplish this? Couldn't you send it as app

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JTK wrote: > Chris Hoess wrote: >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JTK wrote: >> >>>That was supposedly a DOM issue; Mozilla doesn't support the same DOMs >>>that all other web browsers apparently do, and is therefore unable to >>>render many of them properly. O

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote: > > That was supposedly a DOM issue; Mozilla doesn't support the same DOMs > that all other web browsers apparently do, and is therefore unable to > render many of them properly. Oh well, I'm sure everybody will be > willing to rewrite their HTML so that Mozilla's 0.75% of the popu

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

On 02/04/2002 05:11 PM, JTK wrote: > Pratik wrote: > >>On 02/04/2002 03:34 PM, JTK wrote: >> >> >>>Yeah, fine, whatever, the non-updated script worked fine with both >>>NC4.7x and IE. Evangelism bug! (Man could THAT have been more aptly >>>named): >>> >>>"Dear Sirs, >>>Your web site does not

Re: Moral high ground?

JTK wrote: > They have a huge market share. So now what do they do rabbi? Yep, jack > up the price to whatever the suckers will bear, and pump ads at them to > boot. > Yep, not even the people that pay for it. It's their network, they can do whatever they want with it. -- jesus X [ Booze-fue

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04 Feb 2002: > "Improper"? Why? It works fine on IE and NC4.7x. What's > "improper" about that? > Knives work fine getting stuck out of the toaster. Since they work fine, it's "proper" to stick the knife in the

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote: > > Huh, now I'm not Another Netscape Collabra Server User Have you ever looked at your headers? Every single one says "Organization: Another Netscape Collabra Server User" -- jesus X [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism. ] email [ jesusx @ who.net ]

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote: > AH! So *THE LORD* is the one behind that article! Wonderful! Why no > attribution, or did I just miss it? You just missed it. It's at the top. > So you mean to say that: > N_bugs_in_bugzilla = A * N_registered_bugzilla_users > for some suitable A? A being the number of valid bu

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04 Feb 2002: > Well at least 0.75% of the population doesn't have to > suffer this misery! > *cough* 3.0% Still lying about numbers, are we? Afraid of the quadrupled market share? -- ICQ: N/A (temporarily) AIM

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04 Feb 2002: > Unless IE can render it. Then you're pretty much set. > For another 6 or 8 months -- ICQ: N/A (temporarily) AIM: FlyersR1 9 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ = m

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04 Feb 2002: > That was supposedly a DOM issue; Mozilla doesn't support the same > DOMs that all other web browsers apparently do, and is therefore > unable to render many of them properly. Oh well, I'm sure > everyb

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote: > > And if you want it all, use IE. Not until they get their CSS support up to at least Opera's level. I'm pretty tired of using hacks to get around IE bugs. In this respect, IE is holding me back. IE6 isn't much of an improvement. It still barely supports core CSS1. Maybe IE7 wi

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Pratik wrote: > On 02/04/2002 03:34 PM, JTK wrote: > > >> Yeah, fine, whatever, the non-updated script worked fine with both >> NC4.7x and IE. Evangelism bug! (Man could THAT have been more aptly >> named): >> >> "Dear Sirs, >> Your web site does not render properly on my web browser, which

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Chris Hoess wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JTK wrote: > >>That was supposedly a DOM issue; Mozilla doesn't support the same DOMs >>that all other web browsers apparently do, and is therefore unable to >>render many of them properly. Oh well, I'm sure everybody will be >>willing to r

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Sören Kuklau wrote: > JTK wrote: > >> Chris Hoess wrote: >> >>> CSS and DOM support. >> > >> Yeah, um, no, that "hover tips" thingy I pointed out works on >> Communicator and IE (and my money's on Opera as well), but not on >> Mozilla. > > > Because it's not proper W3C DOM. Proper schmopper

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Sören Kuklau wrote: > JTK wrote: > >> Sören Kuklau wrote: >> >>> Symbian, formerly EPOX (sp?), is the OS PSION handhelds use. It's no >>> longer developed by PSION, but by what JTK would call the Symbian >>> Politburo. >> > >> Why would I call it that? Are they doing the "you do the work, we

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

On 02/04/2002 03:34 PM, JTK wrote: > Yeah, fine, whatever, the non-updated script worked fine with both > NC4.7x and IE. Evangelism bug! (Man could THAT have been more aptly > named): > > "Dear Sirs, > Your web site does not render properly on my web browser, which has > 0.75% market share.

Re: DHTML Performance in Moz0.9.8

James Clash wrote: > Fabian Guisset wrote: > >> James Clash wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I just tested many DHTML sites with the latest >>> nightlies and experienced some major problems >>> (hang, considerably slower, etc.) >>> >>> A search in bugzilla revealed the relating bug >>> - http://bugzill

Re: #1 Mozilla Problem - back and forwards

My $0.02: I would contend that this is more than perception. I would rather have a page immediately show and then redraw a couple of times, even if it is overall slower. I can get an idea of what I'm looking at, visually scan for what interests me, and then start reading. If I wait ten seconds

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JTK wrote: > > That was supposedly a DOM issue; Mozilla doesn't support the same DOMs > that all other web browsers apparently do, and is therefore unable to > render many of them properly. Oh well, I'm sure everybody will be > willing to rewrite their HTML so

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote: > That was supposedly a DOM issue; Mozilla doesn't support the same DOMs > that all other web browsers apparently do, and is therefore unable to > render many of them properly. Oh well, I'm sure everybody will be > willing to rewrite their HTML so that Mozilla's 0.75% of the popula

Re: Where is Profile Manger

Mozilla also puts the Profile Manager shortcut in the start menu, as Matt outlined below for Netscape. I start from an icon in my taskbar, so I never noticed this. I haven't received any notification on my bug report for better documentation. Is documentation centralized anywhere or is it just

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

DeMoN LaG wrote: > Fix your statistics. 3.0% last count. Hmm, let's do some math with > that. It was .75%, now it's 3.0%. So between statistics takings, > Mozilla QUADRUPLED it's market share. For a browser that isn't even > marketed towards anyone other than developers and techies, that's

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote: > Sören Kuklau wrote: >> Once you tell me how to use 8-bit Alpha channels on 24-bit PNG images? >> Come on, they had 7 years to implement it properly. > Indeed, how has the world survived without 8-bit alpha channels on our > PNG images!?!?! Well at least 0.75% of the population doe

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04 Feb 2002: > Hehhehe, yeah, you keep tellin' yourself that, year after year, > milestone after milestone. 0.75% market share after 0.75% market > share. > >>Personally, I'm glad it's being done the way that

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote: > Chris Hoess wrote: >> CSS and DOM support. > Yeah, um, no, that "hover tips" thingy I pointed out works on > Communicator and IE (and my money's on Opera as well), but not on Mozilla. Because it's not proper W3C DOM. And we discussed that already again and again. The site used an

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

"Bundy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in gSp78.83089$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:gSp78.83089$[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04 Feb 2002: > Take a look at all the things that Opera can do with far less code > and a much faster browser. That is the approach Mozilla should > take, speed not bells. If Opera were li

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote: > Sören Kuklau wrote: >> Symbian, formerly EPOX (sp?), is the OS PSION handhelds use. It's no >> longer developed by PSION, but by what JTK would call the Symbian >> Politburo. > Why would I call it that? Are they doing the "you do the work, we get > the profit" "Open Source" model

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Sören Kuklau wrote: > JTK wrote: > >> And if you want it all, use IE. > > > Once you tell me how to use 8-bit Alpha channels on 24-bit PNG images? > Come on, they had 7 years to implement it properly. > Indeed, how has the world survived without 8-bit alpha channels on our PNG images!?!?!

Content Type / Helper Applications

All, I'm having trouble getting NN 6.2 to respond as expected when the I've set the content type and disposition of the response as follows: Content Type Header: "text/plain" Content Disposition Header: "Attachment; filename=foo.txt" I've configured "Preferences -> Navigator -> Helper Apps" to

Re: Shared Address Book Prob

Jonas Jørgensen wrote: > > Alex Justo wrote: > > I'm trying to get a department to share an address book. I finally > > figured out how to store the address book in a server so that many users > > can access it from a central location. Unfortunately when one user has > > it open, nobody else can

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Pratik wrote: > On 02/04/2002 02:49 PM, JTK wrote: > >> Chris Hoess wrote: >> >>> In article , Bundy >>> wrote: >>> >>> Tell me one single area where Mozilla outperforms Opera and Explorer? Just one please. >>> CSS and DOM support. >>> >>>

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04 Feb 2002: > My God, it's like I stumbled into a funny farm here. Mr. LaG, do > you honestly mean to tell me that you believe that defects in > software should not be fixed? That software projects should simply >

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote: > Sören Kuklau wrote: >> No, I'm claiming that _it_has_increased_*a*_*lot*_. > Numbers Kuklau. That's my last name. I don't call you "K" either, unless you're the guy from Men In Black with exactly that name. I can't and won't give you numbers (never trust statistics you didn't fak

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote: > And if you want it all, use IE. Once you tell me how to use 8-bit Alpha channels on 24-bit PNG images? Come on, they had 7 years to implement it properly. -- Regards, Sören Kuklau ('Chucker') [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Chris Hoess wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JTK wrote: > >>Chris Hoess wrote: >> >>>In article , Bundy wrote: >>> >>> Tell me one single area where Mozilla outperforms Opera and Explorer? Just one please. >>>CSS and DOM support. >>> >>> >>

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

On 02/04/2002 02:49 PM, JTK wrote: > Chris Hoess wrote: > >>In article , Bundy wrote: >> >> >>>Tell me one single area where Mozilla outperforms Opera and Explorer? Just >>>one please. >>> >>> >>CSS and DOM support. >> >> >> > > Yeah, um, no, that "hover tips" thin

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote: > Christian Biesinger wrote: >> Um, many? They have one for Windows; their latest browser for Linux >> is only a "technology preview", the BeOS browser is version 3.something, > Since BeOS is defunct, this is an issue how? They claim it works on BeOS. They don't really fulfill that cl

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JTK wrote: > Chris Hoess wrote: >> In article , Bundy wrote: >> >>>Tell me one single area where Mozilla outperforms Opera and Explorer? Just >>>one please. >>> >> >> CSS and DOM support. >> >> > > Yeah, um, no, that "hover tips"

Open for INSTANT ACCESS to Free Teen Twat

NOTE: This is not SPAM! This email was sent to you because your email was entered on a website requesting to be a registered subscriber. If you did not request this email, click here to unsubscribe

browser statistics - mozilla 10%!

the university for technology in vienna/austria just released the results of an online-survey amongst all students, lecturers and office employees about the usage of its web-services. as part of the results, OS and browser statistics of all participants were released, which might be of interes

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Bill Weinman wrote: > "Bundy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >news:... > >>Take a look at all the things that Opera can do with far less code and a >>much faster browser. That is the approach Mozilla should take, speed not >>bells. >> > >For what it is,

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Chris Hoess wrote: > In article , Bundy wrote: > >>Tell me one single area where Mozilla outperforms Opera and Explorer? Just >>one please. >> > > CSS and DOM support. > > Yeah, um, no, that "hover tips" thingy I pointed out works on Communicator and IE (and my

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Sören Kuklau wrote: > Christian Biesinger wrote: > >> the same goes for the Symbian OS version (what _is_ that?). > > > Symbian, formerly EPOX (sp?), is the OS PSION handhelds use. It's no > longer developed by PSION, but by what JTK would call the Symbian > Politburo. > Why would I call it

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Sören Kuklau wrote: > JTK wrote: > >> Sören Kuklau wrote: >> >>> 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 sur

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Sören Kuklau wrote: > Bundy wrote: > >> Take a look at all the things that Opera can do with far less code and a >> much faster browser. That is the approach Mozilla should take, speed not >> bells. > > > If you want speed, use Opera. If you want features of the future, use > Mozilla. As simpl

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Christian Biesinger wrote: > Bundy wrote: > >> Opera seems to do fine trying to run their browsers for many OS's > > > Um, many? They have one for Windows; their latest browser for Linux > is only a "technology preview", the BeOS browser is version 3.something, Since BeOS is defunct, this is a

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

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Nigel L wrote: > /Nigel L recounts:/ > Sören Kuklau wrote: >> Bundy wrote: >>> Opera ... [uses] less code and [is] much faster Mozilla should >>> ...[aim for] speed not bells. >> If you want speed, use Opera. If you want features of the future, use >> Mozilla. As simple as that. > I h

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Nigel L recounts: Sören Kuklau wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]">Bundy wrote: Opera ... [uses] less code and [is] much faster Mozilla should ...[aim for] speed not bells. If you want speed, use Opera. If you want features of the future, use Mozilla. As simple as that. I  have found Oper

Re: #1 Mozilla Problem - back and forwards

tradervik wrote: [snip] > However, when you press forward/back in IE, the page immediately > changes whereas, in Moz, the page does not change immediately. > In IE, some time is then spent redrawing. In Moz, when the page does > change, it appears all at once. IIRC, this time is hardcoded into

Re: Talkback.exe taking 100% of CPU?

Nigel L seconds: David Gerard wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]"> ...talkback, it takes 100% of the CPU...I'm having trouble contacting the talkback servers & I've noticed that the most likely occasion for the delivery to succeed is just as the installation of the next nightly version attempts to

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

"Bundy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:... > Take a look at all the things that Opera can do with far less code and a > much faster browser. That is the approach Mozilla should take, speed not > bells. For what it is, Opera is an excellent product. It

Re: Anchor tags in NS 4

Ric Gates wrote: > So why are you replying to me, I didn't start the thread. Maybe you didn't start the thread in netscape.public.general or netscape.public.dev.html, but you message was the first one to show up here in netscape.public.mozilla.general, which is NOT about NS4.x. -- Hvis svaret

  1   2   >