"David Debono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
That is absolutely fascinating, thank you for your time. I will consider it
for my research.
> Again both are still being used, but as I've not used Mainframes in
> anger for a few years now
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 22:56:22 GMT, "George Copeland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"David Debono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> They still exist and are being used, although not as much as before.
>> What is interesting about TCP/IP as a way
"ML" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > Try: http://sillydog.org/narchive/
> >
> > Thanks that is very useful.
>
> Are you going to publish a paper on this? It's interesting, especially
> to one who has used Netscape since v.1 and is still a m
> > Try: http://sillydog.org/narchive/
>
> Thanks that is very useful.
Are you going to publish a paper on this? It's interesting, especially
to one who has used Netscape since v.1 and is still a member of the
loyal and faithful.
ML
"David Debono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> They still exist and are being used, although not as much as before.
> What is interesting about TCP/IP as a way of communicating is that
> there are now many differing systems with a shared connect
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 19:39:33 GMT, "George Copeland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"David Debono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> I think that is a bit simplistic. When TCP/IP was shoehorned on-top of
>> these other systems a type of interconne
"David Debono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I think that is a bit simplistic. When TCP/IP was shoehorned on-top of
> these other systems a type of interconnectivity was achieved getting
> progressively better as the old systems gradually died
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 16:25:05 GMT, "George Copeland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"David Debono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> I think that the relevance was that these dissonent systems of
>> interconnectivity. email and such like, were bro
"David Debono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I think that the relevance was that these dissonent systems of
> interconnectivity. email and such like, were brought together,
> struggling, and unified in a disjointed manner.
Before TCP/IP, such
ys as well?
>> It always makes me smile when people say the internet was created in
>> 1991 (or whatever). Not many people remember BIX, CIX, early
>> compuserve and things like fidonet and janet these days.
>
>I don't see any relevance of these issues to business his
Not many people remember BIX, CIX, early
> compuserve and things like fidonet and janet these days.
I don't see any relevance of these issues to business history. From a
business perspective, the main innovation was the TCP/IP stack, which
provides a standard way to connect compu
the time IE was a
>> bit of a no-goer. I suppose I was interested in your line of research
>> really. Netscape has rather lost the plot recently with
>> "feature-bloat" IMHO. Oh well
>
>I am an armchair historian and I like business history. I think it is kind
>of a
has rather lost the plot recently with
> "feature-bloat" IMHO. Oh well
I am an armchair historian and I like business history. I think it is kind
of a neglected topic.
"Chris I" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Try: http://sillydog.org/narchive/
Thanks that is very useful.
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 12:18:45 GMT, "George Copeland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"David Debono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Out of genuine interest why? I remember the first www type browsers
>> (they did make using the internet far easie
George Copeland wrote:
>I am looking for the version number of the first release of Netscape
>Navigator that would display animated gifs, and the exact date of its
>release. If anyone knows or remembers any of the details surrounding the
>first use of animated gifs on the web, I would be delight
"Christopher Jahn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Best asked in:
> snews://secnews.netscape.com/netcape.communicator
>
> And also try:
> http://ufaq.org
Thanks.
"David Debono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Out of genuine interest why? I remember the first www type browsers
> (they did make using the internet far easier!) but why particularly
> Netscape and animated gifs and not the others?
Netscape w
On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 20:21:31 GMT, "George Copeland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I am looking for the version number of the first release of Netscape
>Navigator that would display animated gifs, and the exact date of its
>release. If anyone knows or remembers any of the details surrounding the
>f
And it came to pass that George Copeland wrote:
> I am looking for the version number of the first release of
> Netscape Navigator that would display animated gifs, and
> the exact date of its release. If anyone knows or
> remembers any of the details surrounding the first use of
> animated gifs
I am looking for the version number of the first release of Netscape
Navigator that would display animated gifs, and the exact date of its
release. If anyone knows or remembers any of the details surrounding the
first use of animated gifs on the web, I would be delighted to know it,
especially if
La pooh wrote:
> Is there some effective way of cleaning all lists such as cache, visited
> sites, history, and so on in mozilla ?
>
> In opera this can be acomplished by pressing a single button.
> This would be a very nice feature that, i belive would not require much
> pro
Is there some effective way of cleaning all lists such as cache, visited
sites, history, and so on in mozilla ?
In opera this can be acomplished by pressing a single button.
This would be a very nice feature that, i belive would not require much
programming to add to mozilla !?
--
La pooh
Christoph Vogelbusch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I want to make a form, where people can input/select a database table
> and then select a field of that table.
>
> I would like to do this without select-lists to save space.
> So it would be nice to have either the history filled with a
Hi,
I want to make a form, where people can input/select a database table
and then select a field of that table.
I would like to do this without select-lists to save space.
So it would be nice to have either the history filled with all the
possiblities OR have a Menu that appears by weither
Jonathan Wilson wrote:
> For some reason slashdot.org isnt being saved in the URL history and
> isnt autocompleting when I type it in. Is there a reason for that or is
> it a problem on my end (like a corrupt history)
>
worksforme 2002012608, try deleting history.mab in your user directory.
For some reason slashdot.org isnt being saved in the URL history and
isnt autocompleting when I type it in. Is there a reason for that or is
it a problem on my end (like a corrupt history)
lead us into that direction. Do you quite possibly
> know where we can find that code??
>
> -as well, perhaps where the linked list of the frames/session history are
> declared and implemented?
>
> -What does the docSHell tree architecture have to do with the session
> hi
know where we can find that code??
-as well, perhaps where the linked list of the frames/session history are
declared and implemented?
-What does the docSHell tree architecture have to do with the session
history?
thank you
Gregor Haddow wrote:
> After wrestling with IE I have decided to go with Mozilla for my project -
> it being open source. I am writing a program that reads the history of a
> user, interprets the data and then stores it in a database to be used later.
> Can anyone please tell me h
David W. Fenton wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (jdavis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>I totally agree, the history function has been totally ignored. I
>>agree with everything you've said. I would be happy if once I got
>>the history window in the ungrouped v
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (jdavis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I totally agree, the history function has been totally ignored. I
>agree with everything you've said. I would be happy if once I got
>the history window in the ungrouped view and I sort it in the
>order of "
David W. Fenton wrote:
>OK, I've looked on Google and Bugzilla for this one, too, and
>didn't find anything. I'm using 0.9.6 on Win95 OSR2.
>
>When I open the History window (having it take over part of the
>browser window is an IE-copycat abomination, of course)
OK, I've looked on Google and Bugzilla for this one, too, and
didn't find anything. I'm using 0.9.6 on Win95 OSR2.
When I open the History window (having it take over part of the
browser window is an IE-copycat abomination, of course), and change
the view (I hate the IE-deriv
Having history remember sort order is an old bug. History remembering
its "group by" setting is a recent regression.
jdavis wrote:
>History feature has a bad memory for both what to sort by and the
> numeric or alphabetic order it was left in. It keeps reverting to a
&g
numeric or alphabetic order it was left in. It keeps reverting to a
default. I used to love the history feature in Netscape 4.x. It's
almost working now in Mozilla but a little buggy still.
> >> 0.9.4 is fine on CNN. Something regressed along the
> >> way. Same thing with www.smh.com.au - history
> >> problems with 0.9.5 and fine on 0.9.4
> >>
> >
> > Yes, the problem is not there with 0.9.4 but appeared
> > during some nighlty b
ing at that site
>>> before I discovered that pref...previous builds, I'm guessing circa
>>> 0.9.1.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 0.9.4 is fine on CNN. Something regressed along the way. Same thing
>> with www.smh.com.au - history problems with 0.9
0.9.1.
>>
>>
>
> 0.9.4 is fine on CNN. Something regressed along the way. Same thing with
> www.smh.com.au - history problems with 0.9.5 and fine on 0.9.4
>
> ng
>
Yes, the problem is not there with 0.9.4 but appeared during some nighlty
builts before 0.9.5 and st
specific url tries to open new windows.
>> I have this preference on. How about you?
>>
>> bob
>>
>> Lucas MacBride wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Davis wrote:
>>>
>>>> I get the same thing. cnn doesnt appear in the back button history
>&
rote:
>
>> Bob Davis wrote:
>>
>>> I get the same thing. cnn doesnt appear in the back button history
>>> drop down either.
>>>
>>> bob
>>>
>>> Kin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi, wheenver I go on CNN.com website and clic
. cnn doesnt appear in the back button history
>> drop down either.
>>
>> bob
>>
>> Kin wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, wheenver I go on CNN.com website and click on a link, the BACK
>>> button does not light up and I simply cannot browse back to the
>&
Bob Davis wrote:
> I get the same thing. cnn doesnt appear in the back button history drop
> down either.
>
> bob
>
> Kin wrote:
>
>> Hi, wheenver I go on CNN.com website and click on a link, the BACK
>> button does not light up and I simply cannot bro
I get the same thing. cnn doesnt appear in the back button history drop
down either.
bob
Kin wrote:
>Hi, wheenver I go on CNN.com website and click on a link, the BACK button
>does not light up and I simply cannot browse back to the previous page.
>That behavior happens on s
and then go to CNN, check a link and try to browse
> back, it will bring me back to the other previously visited
> website. It's like CNN never gets in the history. Is it the
> same for everyone?
The same thing actually happens to me with Opera. Hitting the
'Back' button doe
link
and try to browse back, it will bring me back to the other previously
visited website. It's like CNN never gets in the history. Is it the same
for everyone?
I use Mozilla 0.9.5 right now, but the same things happened with nightly
builts before and after 0.9.5
thanks
--
Kin
-R
format details of the
> "netscape.hst" file?
>
> I have lost my history, but have the history file and NEED
> to use it.
> I recovered it with 'Norton's Unerase'. Please bear with me for a
> description of what apparently happened.
>
&
How do you delete history? it's become an extremely tiresome task
using Task>Tools> Delete History. I can't remove the header of the
site name, but the inside links. Also, which file stores history?
The behavior of the history dropdown in the location bar in 0.9.1 (tried on
Linux and FreeBSD) seems to be sub-optimal. It has an entry for every URL
viewed on a site, and it doesn't seem to have any reasonable sorting
order. For example, say I'm using a web applicati
TxToast wrote:
> Help! Ever since I installed Netscape 6.01 I haven't been able to view
> my previous url history. Is there something I may have missed after the
> install? There seems to be no place to configure the use of my History
> File except for the general Preferenc
Help! Ever since I installed Netscape 6.01 I haven't been able to view
my previous url history. Is there something I may have missed after the
install? There seems to be no place to configure the use of my History
File except for the general Preferences, and that only gives me the
opti
See the comments for bug 65862 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65862>
Gregg wrote:
I want to see HISTORY without having to search.
I liked (after
netscape crashes) I could find what pages I was on by just looking
at
history. But now I can't look at the history. I can
I want to see HISTORY without having to search. I liked (after
netscape crashes) I could find what pages I was on by just looking at
history. But now I can't look at the history. I can just search it.
I can't even search on the date because it doesn't have DATE! Please
add full
Hi, ever since the new "sort by day" history scheme came out, my history
won't display anything older than "Today." I think I may have broken
it by fooling with the headers and such... anyone else see this?
Hi, Since Saturday's builds it seems that mozilla is losing its history.
I've seen this on two boxes. One box, I installed Saturday's build
on an NT system and all history was lost. Once I started browsing
again I started to accumulate stuff under "Today", but the ot
gt;> 4.0, or maybe even earlier. Other browsers I've used with a
>> "download
>> history"/"download manager" include iCab and Opera. Take a
>> look at the
>> existing implementations, and see what you like and don't like...
>
--
Orrin Edenfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://orrinrule.com
Thanks for you message and the URLs. VERY nice. I had no idea about IE for
Mac since I use Windows, OS/2,Linux, FreeBSD, solaris, but not mac. :-)
The big question is: anyone cares to include such a download manager, like
the simple "download history" one I suggested, into Mozilla? I
ve used with a
> "download
> history"/"download manager" include iCab and Opera. Take a
> look at the
> existing implementations, and see what you like and don't like...
M$ IE v99.x and hyped as
> the "biggest invention since sliced bread".
There has been a Download Manager in the Mac version of IE since version
4.0, or maybe even earlier. Other browsers I've used with a "download
history"/"download manager" include iCab a
s of XUL code, there
would be an icon for the "download history".
(I'd like to see it on the lower-right corner). So when you click on it,
it would open a 3/4-screen sized window (a la "Edit bookmarks" window in
communicator) showing the contents of this html "log fil
> I submitted a bug for the URL history. Does anyone want to varify/vote
> for this, I'm not sure what needs to be done after it's submitted to be
> recognized as a bug.
If you wait a few days, someone normally gets to it.
Gerv
I submitted a bug for the URL history. Does anyone want to varify/vote
for this, I'm not sure what needs to be done after it's submitted to be
recognized as a bug.
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69265
Chuck Simmons wrote:
>
> Duke Ellington wrote:
> >
> > In netscape.public.mozilla.general the people heard Phillip M. Jones,
> > C.E.T. say these wise words:
> >
> > >That was during the days when you paid for the product. (Back before
> > >MicroSoft decided to give IE away so they could Bankrup
Duke Ellington wrote:
>
> In netscape.public.mozilla.general the people heard Phillip M. Jones,
> C.E.T. say these wise words:
>
> >That was during the days when you paid for the product. (Back before
> >MicroSoft decided to give IE away so they could Bankrupt Netscape and
> >get rid of the comp
Duke Ellington wrote:
>
> In netscape.public.mozilla.general the people heard Phillip M. Jones,
> C.E.T. say these wise words:
>
> >That was during the days when you paid for the product. (Back before
> >MicroSoft decided to give IE away so they could Bankrupt Netscape and
> >get rid of the comp
That was the actual version Name of the First Netscape Product that had
the Composer module. (The first time you could send mai with html).
That was during the days when you paid for the product. (Back before
MicroSoft decided to give IE away so they could Bankrupt Netscape and
get rid of the com
Chuck Simmons wrote:
>
> Daniel Veditz wrote:
> >
> > That doesn't seem right, we had segregated US vs. Export versions prior to
> > 4.05 and the only reason for that would be cryptographic strength.
> >
> > -Dan Veditz
> >
> > "Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T." wrote:
> > >
> > > Communicator 4.0.5
> >
OK, thanks for the info. Now, next question: What is the earliest version
of MSIE to incorporate 128-bit SSL as well? (I know im in the weong group
for this question)
"Chuck Simmons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Veditz wrote:
> >
>
Daniel Veditz wrote:
>
> That doesn't seem right, we had segregated US vs. Export versions prior to
> 4.05 and the only reason for that would be cryptographic strength.
>
> -Dan Veditz
>
> "Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T." wrote:
> >
> > Communicator 4.0.5
> >
> > Casey Morton wrote:
> > >
> > > Does
That was the first version that offerred a 128 version. I know because I
have kept up with every version since Navigator 3.0.1 through
Communicator 4.7.6 (mac). To get 128 bit version you had to fill out a
form with you name email and you had to click on check box swearing you
were a US citzen und
Daniel Veditz wrote:
>
> That doesn't seem right, we had segregated US vs. Export versions prior to
> 4.05 and the only reason for that would be cryptographic strength.
>
> -Dan Veditz
>
> "Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T." wrote:
> >
> > Communicator 4.0.5
> >
> > Casey Morton wrote:
> > >
> > > Does
That doesn't seem right, we had segregated US vs. Export versions prior to
4.05 and the only reason for that would be cryptographic strength.
-Dan Veditz
"Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T." wrote:
>
> Communicator 4.0.5
>
> Casey Morton wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone know what the earliest version of Netsc
Communicator 4.0.5
Casey Morton wrote:
>
> Does anyone know what the earliest version of Netscape was that offered 128
> bit SSL?
>
> Casey Morton
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
--
Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ET
Does anyone know what the earliest version of Netscape was that offered 128
bit SSL?
Casey Morton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
74 matches
Mail list logo
