Peter Stein wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Pratik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 03/25/2002 06:17 PM, Peter Stein wrote:
Has anyone taken a look? Does anyone care?
I just did. And I can't reproduce it. Try deleting your XUL.mfasl file.
try it with XUL disabled/enabled
Garth Wallace wrote:
Glenn Miller wrote:
On 22 Mar 2002, Jay Garcia was seen to have posted this wee note into
netscape.public.mozilla.general, to which I have responded as follows:
The build date is 03-14-2002 but that doesn't mean that it's using the
0.9.9 Gecko engine.
I didn't
Netscape Basher wrote:
ftp://sunsite.ualberta.ca/pub/Mirror/mozilla/mozilla/nightly/latest-0.9.9/
I suggest the mozilla-win32-installer-sea.exe download because if you
download mozilla-win32-installer.exe, it will attempt to download the
rest from ftp.mozilla.org which current is being
Alex Farran wrote:
Hi,
The place where I work has blocked access to doubleclick. Now every
time I go to a site with adverts on it I get a pop-up error telling me
that Mozilla can't find doubleclick. I preferred the adverts!
Find your hosts file, under Windows NT its under:
michael lefevre wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ian Davey wrote:
Alex Farran wrote:
Hi,
The place where I work has blocked access to doubleclick. Now every
time I go to a site with adverts on it I get a pop-up error telling me
that Mozilla can't find doubleclick. I preferred
Chris wrote:
I was hoping somebody can help me solve this problem I've been having
with Netscape and Mozilla.
My setup:
Windows 2000
root partition (c: drive) about 200 megs free of a 2 gig partition
File server, z: drive about 40 gigs free
I went to download Oracle 9i (about 1.1
JTK wrote:
Wordstar used to fly on old hardware too. Win 3.11 ran very well in a
486 environment with 4megs yet Win 95 replaced it despite the fact it
required a Pentium class CPU and at least 16 megs of RAM.
Win95 was a hell of a lot better than Win3.11. Mozilla is a hell of a
lot *worse*
dman84 wrote:
Tom Hatta wrote:
I am having another problem. My menu, location bar, links bar, and
status bar disappears, leaving only the tabs, and navigation buttons.
Pressing Control-N to produce a new window doesn't help (same
situation with the new window). My other user profile
John wrote:
Under windows the recommendation is to uninstall mozilla before
installing a new version (e.g. 0.9.6 to 0.9.7). Under Linux using RPMs
what is the procedure? Do you rpm -e current_mozilla first and then
rpm -ivh new_mozilla or is it ok to simply upgrade using rpm -U?
rpm -U
Myself wrote:
And besides, more often than not, html mail contains ugly
fonts/colors and is spam.
Oh well then it must be true. What a terrific argument.
Is there anyone that can state the case?
If you're really interested you can do a search on google groups, this
argument has been
Myself wrote:
If you're really interested you can do a search on google groups,
this argument has been beaten to death many times. It basically comes
down to that fact that plain text is far more accessible to a large
variety of email and usenet clients. You can't even ensure a webpage
Damien Covey wrote:
Blake Ross wrote:
This is a petition to fire David Hyatt for his crimes against the
World Wide Web, namely his implementation of automatic favicon
retrieval. Sign your name here and I will pass this on to Steve Case.
Is this some joke that normal guys just dont get ?
JTK wrote:
Jonathan Wilson wrote:
download manager still needs to land.
Download manager?
Read: Ad pump.
You're think SmartDownload. Have you read the spec for Download Manager?
ian.
John Fabiani wrote:
I only have a two button mouse. I gather there a way to use the keyboard
for the middle button?
Press both mouse buttons at the same time,
ian.
JTK wrote:
Well, until you try to run/unizp whatever you downloaded and
Windows/Winzip tells you it's short. Here's an interim patch until
future civilizations rediscover the magic of ZMODEM and are able to
resume failed file transfers. You're more than welcome:
if(DownloadFailed)
{
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it seems that Mozilla doesn't display images with a width of zero
but a height greater than zero in tables. Is this conform to the
standard? I think it should display an invisible line cosuming
vertical space.
It sounds like its doing what it should. You can't
Greg Miller wrote:
Last I heard, the industry averages were supposed to be something
like 3:1 pageviews-to-users ratio and 50% repeat visitors. So the
number of favicon 404s would be approximately 1/6 of the total number
of pageviews.
That would only be true if every site consisted of
Greg Miller wrote:
That's not a terrible increase in bandwidth (the exact figures would
depend on protocol overhead and such), but web hosts have a nasty habit
of charging for disk space, which often includes the space for those log
files that shoot up by over 20% if everyone adopts
Greg Miller wrote:
Jonas Sicking wrote:
It would be really interesting to get some hard numbers on this. Just
looking at the current logs will not really say anything since very few
people browse with a mozilla with this pref turned on. So we need to
come up
with some way to approximate
Ian Davey wrote:
1/(6*10*10)
So that accounts to 1/6000 resource requests. If you can come up with
some numbers to fill in the above guesses then you'd get closer to the
actual figure.
That should be 1/600 - it's too early in the morning :-)
ian.
David Hyatt wrote:
Make sure you ban Konqueror too. :)
And don't forget IE...!
ian.
Christopher Jahn wrote:
And it came to pass that Gregory Spath wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christopher Jahn
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
And it came to pass that Schelstraete Bart wrote:
--090503040007000902030100
Jay Garcia wrote:
Jonathan Wilson wrote:
What in
Emlyn wrote:
What data security issues are there in NS6.1 that are
not there in NS4.08-4.82(- HUH???)???
So this time it's not a standards compliance issue...
If you point Mozilla to a .xul file (intentionally or not) then
someone else gains some measure of control over your browser. This
Pratik wrote:
(2) The confusing close box on the far right has been eliminated.
Looking for ideas for a better solution (perhaps an X on the tab only
when it is the active tab).
I like the MultiZilla way of middle clicking on the tab to close it.
That'd be no good on Linux, middle
Thomas Gilfether and Jonathan Carver wrote:
Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
Anyone have any info as to when the next milestone is going to be released?
Thanks
Gordon
download the nightly build to get 0.9.4
The nightly builds show progress towards 0.9.4 (which is very close
now), but
Ian Winter wrote:
Thank you for input. I followqed rge directions on that site, but i am still
having problems. When I click on a url in an e-mail messege MS explower
launches instead of Netscape ^. Is there some other problem?
If setting it under View -- Advanced -- System doesn't work then
Marcel Dorenbos wrote:
Hi,
a few days ago I have installed Netscape 6.1. Now I can only run this
application being root on Linux. As a normal user I see the following
error message:
/usr/local/netscape/netscape
/usr/local/netscape/run-mozilla.sh /usr/local/netscape/mozilla-bin
JTK wrote:
Garth Wallace wrote:
JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
What I find rather odd is that while many here cry
Mozilla isn't for users!, Netscape 6.x, which is no more than Mozilla
with an AOL sticker on it, is supposed to be the Mozila
rob wrote:
Hmmm ... just have a question about how the bookmarks are supposed to be
working these days.
I test mozilla / NS builds at home and at work, and I've got some
different behavior happening depending on where i use it and what build
i'm using so i'm sorta wondering what
rob wrote:
Hello,
It is my understanding that XHTML transitional documents are rendered in
standards mode. (please correct me if i'm wrong)
We've been experimenting here with XHTML transitional code and we're
continually finding extra space around elements, particularly images
which
Jerry Watson wrote:
Does anyone know if Netscape ever plans to add a forms AutoFill feature
for easily completing forms on web pages. If this feature was in the
Netscape application I would walk away from other browsers in a second.
It may have been disabled in 6.0 but it's a feature
Crash Course wrote:
I installed the newest version of mozilla an our or so ago.
Everything seemed to run fine until I tried to run it as myself instead
of as root (I installed it as root of course though).
Here is the dump I get when trying to run (by typing
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (lamb liu) wrote:
I use netscape6.01A on Solaris8 (UltraStation10, UltraSparcII 260M ,
Memory 128M), It is very slow though more stable than Netscape 4.7
(which is an ugly stupid software)
who knows how to speed up it?
Try Mozilla 0.9 instead.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Its not a matter of being lazy. It takes no more or less time to bottom
or top post.
All you have to do is choose to set for one or the other. Top posting
is just more logical. The thread flows better.
Then why is bottom posting the
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Thomas Betz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a problem with a form on my site, it's a textarea when you hit
submit it sends the content to my email adress. No problem with Netscape
old and IE, a warning msg appears that this msg will be sent via email
and it sends
In article XrNK6.4387$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Moose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Netscape 6. Does cellpadding work or not??
Yes.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian Davey wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well I'd hope so, given how much memory it hogs. Again, over 22MB *TO
DISPLAY A BLANK PAGE*.
On what platform,
Why2K.
on start up it's 14MB
In article 9bh2fb$8t1uf$[EMAIL PROTECTED], "Jane" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well I have tried some SVG samples in my Netscape 4.7 and it works!
I don't know really how, but it works, I don't even need new 6 version.
You're probably using the Abobe plugin...
ian.
\ /
(@_@)
In article 3adc44e5$0$18689$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Tim Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, I did. I also installed it as root, but that should not cause it to
fail to run, should it? Interestingly enough, I looked in the
"/usr/local/mozilla/run-mozilla.sh" file that is mentions and at the line
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Courtney Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just installed [successfully as far as I can tell] Mozilla from the
FreeBSD port and get core dumped no matter how I try to start it.
I think it still needs to write to the install directory the first time it
runs, so you
In article 0104051046170G.00233@Insanity, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I tried to install the shockwave flash plugin with mozilla ( Linux
Version),
butit does not seem to recongnize that it is there when I enter any of the
shockwave enabled pages...I followed the instructions for a
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Shepps) wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Orrin Edenfield) wrote
Have you tried deleting the file mozreg.dat, which is probably somewhere
in your C:\Windows (maybe C:\Windows\System) folder? Search for it with
Find All Files, and see what you find,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Scott G." [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Interesting. I was not aware that Mozilla/NS6 were complete rewrites.
Beginning with which version?
The rewrite started about two years ago, when the idea of trying to build on
the NS4 codebase was dumped. Every version of
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rob Hoopman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been looking at this, glancing at it from the corners of my eyes,
put it away for a few days, printed it an put it under my pillow at
night, chanting black/white and other magic at it, stared at it some
more and finally
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rob Hoopman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The default is baseline and would explain the extra pixels you are seeing.
I thought this would not be an issue seeing that the td height attributes
exactly match the height of the images for that row.
It's an issue because it
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], AhmetAA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
N6.5 is quite pesimistic.. 6.1 or 6.2 could be ok.. But 6.01 is yes, unusable.
From what I've heard it sounds like 6.5 will be the next release. If it does
turn out to be 6.1, then I'd recommend that one (or whatever version of NS
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Zsolt Koppany [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a couple of weeks ago I tried netscape-6.0 under Linux. The software was
simple unusable. Should I try 6.01? I can hardly imagine that a lot of
bugs were fixed in a couple of weeks. Right now I use 4.76 and it is
stable.
You
In article 968vht$[EMAIL PROTECTED], "Jeffrey Yasskin"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By the way, this shouldn't be this difficult. There should be an
easy-to-find setting in preferences so that people other than Mozilla
developers can make their own stylesheet.
I'm sure there will be, there just
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Warren Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can Mozilla have a user assignable stylesheet like IE and Opera?
Somthing where you can have your own rules to apply to every page you
visit. If not, do they plan on having somthing like this? Don't tell
me IE has this feature
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Daniel Veditz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
mozver.dat and mozregistry.dat don't need to be deleted. This is a myth
promulgated by the same folks who thump the side of their TV to fix the
reception. Mozilla will work just fine even if these files happen to be
corrupted,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], mwe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I downloaded Netscape 6 (dumb of me). Among other things, it converted
every image file in my computer over to a Netscape file. And to open an
image, each time a new Netscape window opens, with an error message. I
tried to de-install
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Karsten Wutzke
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Huh? Not in my Messenger...! Can you tell me the EXACT button name or similar,
please? Which version of
Communicator do you have?
These are the Mozilla newsgroups (Mozilla/Netscape 6), so I was talking about
those rather
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Daniel Veditz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Wrong files, under the WINNT folder you'll file "Profiles", and under that
you NT user profile directory, and under that "Application Data". Inside
that last one you'll find a Mozilla folder that needs to be nuked.
I managed
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Karsten Wutzke
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is annoying me!!! I takes longer, and it is only AMERICAN news. I
want to get rid of it. Is there a way?
Edit -- Preferences -- Mail
There's a preference there to choose the mail "start page".
ian.
\ /
(@_@)
In article 944e40$bv$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Jean-Denis Richard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
Mozilla 0.7 still comes with the "Infinite loop detected" bug,
apparently for people having a proxy/firewall (ie people at
work).
Can you post a URL? I've only ever come across this on page with a genuine
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Thomas Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The Mozilla nightlies are getting more resource hungry rather than
less, it seems :-( After yesterday's download, I discovered with some
dismay that it's already using 29Megs - without me having visited ANY
Just to clarify,
In article 90l0ua$s0o$[EMAIL PROTECTED], "Tom Hesen" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is is possible to view vbscript with netscape 6???
No. It's possible someone may attempt a project to implement it in the future,
but I'd imagine it's quite tightly tied to IE's object model.
ian.
\ /
(@_@)
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gervase Markham
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
layer support as it existed in version 4.7 and maybe even drop the BLINK
tag wich is far more useless in my opinion. The BLINK tag is not even part
of any standard so its a bit of a contradiction to say that you ONLY
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Henning Schnoor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
in today's and yesterday's build, Scrollbars don't appear (using
Windows). The problem occurs both in Navigator and in MailNews (didn't
check anything else).
You probably know about that, but I didn't see it mentioned
In article 3a27c8d5.93537650@news-server, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Netscape 6 does not support Internet standards in my opinion. If you
print a web page with an applet on it, the applet will not print.
That has nothing to do with internet standards. This group is also about
Mozilla (which is
60 matches
Mail list logo
