Christian Biesinger wrote:
Peter Lairo wrote:
I think it is being *deliberately* ignored because the Linux users in
charge of the bug don't understand why it is important to windows
users. :(
Could you explain why it is?
I see it this way: The PW protection is of course worthless.
Sid Vicious wrote:
Peter Lairo wrote:
dman84 wrote:
its not high on anyones priority list.. its futured too, unless
someone has time to work on it besides the assigned bug owner..
I thought there was a patch ready and waiting for this. I think it is
being *deliberately* ignored
dman84 wrote:
its not high on anyones priority list.. its futured too, unless someone
has time to work on it besides the assigned bug owner..
I thought there was a patch ready and waiting for this. I think it is
being *deliberately* ignored because the Linux users in charge of the
bug don't
Peter Lairo wrote:
I think it is
being *deliberately* ignored because the Linux users in charge of the
bug don't understand why it is important to windows users. :(
Could you explain why it is?
I see it this way: The PW protection is of course worthless. Anybody
really wanting to access
Christian Biesinger wrote:
Could you explain why it is?
I (and *many* others) already have exhautively and repeatedly explained
why a PW makes sense for many users.
Go see the relevant posts here and bugs if you are truly interested in
seeing why your oppinion is erroneous, one-sided, and
Peter Lairo wrote:
dman84 wrote:
its not high on anyones priority list.. its futured too, unless
someone has time to work on it besides the assigned bug owner..
I thought there was a patch ready and waiting for this. I think it is
being *deliberately* ignored because the Linux users
Christian Biesinger wrote:
Peter Lairo wrote:
I think it is being *deliberately* ignored because the Linux users in
charge of the bug don't understand why it is important to windows
users. :(
Could you explain why it is?
I see it this way: The PW protection is of course worthless.
And it came to pass that Sid Vicious wrote:
Christian Biesinger wrote:
Peter Lairo wrote:
I think it is being *deliberately* ignored because the
Linux users in charge of the bug don't understand why it
is important to windows users. :(
Could you explain why it is?
I see it this
dman84 wrote:
Sid Vicious wrote:
Anyone know the 'real' status of this bug? It's almost a year and a
half old and seems to just be floundering
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16489
its not high on anyones priority list.. its futured too, unless someone
has time to
Anyone know the 'real' status of this bug? It's almost a year and a
half old and seems to just be floundering
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16489
--
sid
Sid Vicious wrote:
Anyone know the 'real' status of this bug? It's almost a year and a
half old and seems to just be floundering
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16489
its not high on anyones priority list.. its futured too, unless someone
has time to work on it besides
At 18:47 18/12/2000 +0100, Peter Lairo wrote:
you guys just don't get it. Nobody is asking for some all inclusive security
system. What is merely requested is a simple and convenient way to "hinder"
casual,
I don't think anyone is under the misapprehension that you're suggesting
all inclusive
OK, most people use Win9x. If one were to set up multiple user profiles in Win9x,
would:
a) Mozilla install its user files to that users directory?
b) would that directory be in any way protected from view by persons logging in
under another Win9x profile?
If either answer is NO, then Mozilla
At 13:44 18/12/2000 -0500, Stuart Ballard wrote:
"Simon P. Lucy" wrote:
It is an optimal solution if you define optimal to be the best
possible cost
versus benefit. Most users use win9x which has virtually NO "Permission
management". Anyhow, the password would be far from not doing
At 09:58 19/12/2000 +0100, Peter Lairo wrote:
OK, most people use Win9x. If one were to set up multiple user profiles in
Win9x,
would:
a) Mozilla install its user files to that users directory?
It should do, if it doesn't that's a bug.
b) would that directory be in any way protected from
ur pet solution and no other.
I'm sure most people make a conscious choice to use Win9x for those or
similar
reasons. This is the reality. Mozilla should accept it (and the resulting
consequences) and implement password protected profiles.
Oh bollocks :-) People make no choice at all for
irly certain you can get utilities that are designed to
alleviate that shortcoming. Mozilla, though, is designed to be an
Internet application suite.
Let's put it this way, outlook has password protected profiles and is the most
widely used mail prog. People seem to be happy with this solution an
Most users use win9x which has virtually NO
"Permission management".
But I'm fairly certain you can get utilities that are designed to
alleviate that shortcoming. Mozilla, though, is designed to be an
Internet application suite.
Let's put it this way, outlook has pass
"Simon P. Lucy" wrote:
It is an optimal solution if you define optimal to be the best possible cost
versus benefit. Most users use win9x which has virtually NO "Permission
management". Anyhow, the password would be far from not doing "anything". 99%
of unintentional or novice snooping is
Peter Lairo wrote:
It is an optimal solution if you define optimal to be the best possible cost
versus benefit. Most users use win9x which has virtually NO "Permission
management". Anyhow, the password would be far from not doing "anything". 99%
of unintentional or novice snooping is highly
no it doesn't set them up for lawsuits and it doesn't instruct snoopers where to
go.
A standard warning message (as it already existed in NC4.5) aleady exists which
(A) informs that the password is NOT SECURE and (B) does NOT tell snoopers where
the profiles are located.
see here for the
PROTECTED] wrote:
I was able to turn this feature on in Netscape 4.x by going to a Netscape
web site and running a Java applet (or something) that enabled the password
protected profiles. The process was NOT very convenient so I guess
Netscape doesn't really want advocate doing this. I just
Simon P. Lucy wrote:
Please vote for this bug at http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16489
A, but not all the votes are counted ;-)
Yes, but I strongly suspect that they are mechanically counted. We
should call the supreme court to see if we can manually count them.
SCNR,
Seb
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've also reported this bug to Netscape because I want this in Netscape 6
too...
I'd be willing to bet that even if mozilla implemented this feature Netscape
might turn it off in their version. Without real security something that
*looks* like it keeps others out
24 matches
Mail list logo
