My thanks to all you friends who took interest in my problem. I think I have accidentally stumbled on the cure myself. I noticed that (probably since upgrading to IE7) IE had not been checked as my default browser. All seems to be well now! John Barman
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:24:47 +0200 From: "M Henri Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [users] Re: Web Hyperlinks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_76084_30661307.1184837087678" ------=_Part_76084_30661307.1184837087678 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline 2007/7/19, Harold Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On 19/07/07, NoOp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 07/18/2007 10:45 AM, Harold Fuchs wrote: > > > John Barman wrote: > > >> I have recently updated my OO programme to the latest stable > > >> version (2.2.9161) I find that none of my existing web hyperlinks > > >> now work. Typing the URL directly in the Windows Explorer browser > > >> works OK, as does the same hyperlink from a MS Word Document, but > > >> links in OO Write and OO Calc now generate an error message: > > >> "Windows cannot find https:// ....etc. Make sure you typed the name > > >> correctly and then try again. To search for a file, check the Start > > >> button and then check Search." > > >> > > >> John Barman > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > Hmmmm. > > > > > > 1. The *latest* version of OO is 2.2.1 not 2.2.9161 as you mention. > > > Where did you get it from? (or was the 9161 a typo?) > > > > I doubt that it is a typo; if you look at the OOo RPM you'll find that > > they are listed at 2.2.9161 etc. For example, the previous (June) 2.3dev > > .rpm files are: > > > > ooo-dev-core01-2.3.0-9171.i586.rpm > > ooo-dev-writer-2.3.0-9171.i586.rpm > > > > 2.2.0 was 2.20-9134.i5586.rpm > > > > > > I don't have a Windows version handy right now to check, but perhaps the > > windows files a similar numbering scheme? > > > > > > I'm a little confused by your post: the OP says he's using Windows > Explorer > and MS Word which suggests he's on Windows; aren't .rpm files related to > Linux installations? Or is this yet another stick I've got the wrong end > of? > > -- > Harold Fuchs > London, England > Please reply *only* to [email protected] > Harold, rpm-files are indeed used for downloads to (Red Hat versions of) Linux, so you definitely don't have the wrong end of the stick. But after re-reading John Barman's post, I can't help wondering if he doesn't - could it possibly be the case that he inadvertently downloaded files meant for a Red Hat installation to a Windows machine ?... Henri ------=_Part_76084_30661307.1184837087678--
