One of THE most irretating bug i have found, atleast in the windows version of thunderbird is. Clicking on a mailto:abcd@xyz.com link doesn't populate the FROM filed with abcd@xyz.com. Go figure. I have lots of shortcuts on my desktop with destination mailto:someone@somewhare.com, but thunderbird doesn't populate the from field , so irreatating.
This has been fixed since June 16th. See http://www.mozilla.org/projects/thunderbird/change s.html
I haven't seen a MacOS 9 binary release for a long time... not since v1.2.1 anyway. Am I left to compile on my own or has the Mozilla project dropped support altogether?
I agree with you IF the application was unimportant for you. But in a real application you have spend a considerate amount of time colleting and entering your dat, you want to upgrade, not replace.
That is why they call in upgrading sometimes....
Uninstalling Mozilla does not uninstall your profile data. It only uninstalls the application. If you uninstall Mozilla and then install a new version you'll still have your bookmarks, mail, preferences, cookies, etc.
Re:why i won't switch to lightweight firebird
on
Mozilla 1.4 RC3 Is Out
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Mozilla Firebird is designed around the idea that choice is a good thing.
No, it is not. If it was, it wouldn't cut dozens upon dozens of features that people use everyday and which do not harm people who don't use them.
Dozens? Really? Like "at least 24"? Exaggeration doesn't help your point. There are not 24 features in SeaMonkey which are not in Firebird. I have a hard time counting more than a small handful. Differently presented features are not cut features.
I'm certainly no usability expert but if you really think that there's no harm to usability when you add lots of features which clutter and confuse UI then you don't have a very good understanding of usability.
And TBE is not the favorite extension of all Firebird fans. It's a popular extension but most Firebird users have probably never installed a single extension. Once again your exaggeration doesn't help make your case.
here is an intersting website by a moz developer (which sadly is not a parody but the REAL thing.. this guy is dead serious). http://mithgol.pp.ru/Mozilla/
Except that that's not from a Mozilla developer. Sad and funny? Making up facts is kinda sad; not terribly funny.
You have several choices. Use Sun's 1.4.2 beta. Wait until Sun 1.4.2 final is released. Use Blackdown's plug-in compiled with GCC 3.2 (the Sun 1.4.2 requirement is only a new compiler requirement.) Compile Mozilla yourself with an older compiler so it works with an older Java. Get someone else to compile Mozilla for you.
"Interesting that the last great, stable RH is considered too "old" for mozilla...
Or am I just overreacting? I like my 7.3 boxes, dammit."
Yeah, forced upgrades suck, don't they? Kinda amusing tho, usually MS is the butt of that comment.
You're not being forced to upgrade anything. The mozilla.org binaries should work on stock RH7.2 and higher, and earlier 7.x if you have glibc 2.2.4 or higher. If you don't want to upgrade glibc or your OS, then feel free to compile Mozilla yourself or wait for your distro or someone else to make a build that works there.
http://arxiv.org/ is invaluable if you're interested in scientific publishing. It's been around for more than a decade and I know of no better research archiving and dissemination project. I imagine that it was designed for a specific community (researchers) but, as nothing but a spectator, I've found it to be a great source of information and worth visiting regularly.
There is little doubt that there exists lots of water on Mars. GRS, onboard Mars Odyssey pretty much answered that question http://grs.lpl.arizona.edu/results/presscon2/ . The only real question now is whether or not there is any significant quantity of *liquid* water. This MOC images of Russel crater suggest recent flowing water/mud and that's the news, not that there is water, but that there seems to have been recent *flowing* water.
"Better to acknowledge the best-of-breed methodology Microsoft uses to test their OSes...."
Except that this article says nothing about the testing methodology that Microsoft uses. It describes how Microsoft helps certain customers test deployment. Deployment testing has little or nothing to do with software testing.
This is an article about how Microsoft has the budget to help "special" customers with a free "service" (not software) and frankly, the bits about offering cash-strapped school systems free consulting and test deployments sounds a lot more like a Microsoft press release than a software testing case study.
I was genuinely hoping to read about their software QA process. What a waste of 5 minutes.
The search bar may (may) be helpful to new users, but I think most power users find it annoying.
I think just the opposite. Newbies may be happy with a limited single search engine for all searches in the Mozilla urlbar but power users like me want the flexibility different searches in their search field. I have google, google groups, google news, google images, dmoz, bbc news, salon and NASA searches all available in my search field. I can't get that power-functionality in my Mozilla urlbar.
this guy, asa is the kind of guy that will soon get thousands spam...is it really a good idea to write a news submitter's email address on/. homepage, without any *anti spam trick* ?
I am simply saying that an application (Netscape 4.x) that was written over five years ago, and does pretty much the same thing as Mozilla, is a lot, lot faster.
Wrong. Netscape 4.x doesn't even come close to supporting web content as well as Mozilla. It simply doesn't do pretty much the same thing.
I'm not gonna use Firebird until they support hitting down arrow to search on Google.
And what's so crazy about using the search field and saving that extra down arrow keystroke? In addition to the default Google, the search field can have literally hundreds of search engines available with a single click (including google images, groups, and news). Why would you want to use the very limited search option of Mozilla's addressfield whe you can use a powertool like Mozilla Firebird's search field? It's faster, more flexible andd requires one less keystroke.
Yes the typical response. I'm not asking for release quality in every aspect of the product. I'm just asking that it can handle the basic function of installing itself.
Another thing, if it's so "pre-alpha", why does almost everything else work so well?
Lots works and lots doesn't. That's what you get with an 0.6:-) If you're willing to risk additional bugs then feel free to just unpack this and use it with your old profile but it's possible that something changed in how we read or write some of the profile data so you could experience problems. If you experience problems upgrading from one testing build to the other without starting fresh, please don't file bugs until you've tested with a clean profile like we suggest in the release notes.
(And thanks for taking the time to download and test 0.5. If you actually use that as your regular browser then I strongly recommend that you get 0.6 because it really is much better.)
Call it a troll, but I've been using.5 for a while, and am not going to upgrade until I can use my old data reliably. It took enough playing around to get some plugins working right the first time around. I don't want to play the game again.
"Call me crazy if you want. I'm using a pre-alpha snapshot from 6 months ago and I'm not about to upgrade to another pre-alpha testing build until these pre-alpha test builds are bug-free and release quality. What are those crazy open source developers smoking? "
Slashdot Mirror
CSS, Flash and PHP aren't browser innovations.
How is CSS not a browser innovation? Can you tell me what CSS would be worth if not for CSS support in browsers?
--Asa
In addition, NONE of my XUL/XPI/whatever plug-ins/skins work. The plug-ins and tabs are what makes Moz worth running in my opinion.
That's strange. None of my XUL/XPI/whatever plugins don't work in Firebird and there are considerably more of them available for Firebird than for Mozilla (74 for Firebird vs. 51 for Mozilla extensions at last count at http://extensionroom.mozdev.org/index.html and 55 themes for Firebird http://texturizer.net/firebird/themes.html vs. about 25 for Mozilla http://themes.mozdev.org/)
--Asa
One of THE most irretating bug i have found, atleast in the windows version of thunderbird is .
e s.html
Clicking on a mailto:abcd@xyz.com link doesn't populate the FROM filed with abcd@xyz.com. Go figure.
I have lots of shortcuts on my desktop with destination mailto:someone@somewhare.com, but thunderbird doesn't populate the from field , so irreatating.
This has been fixed since June 16th. See http://www.mozilla.org/projects/thunderbird/chang
--Asa
I haven't seen a MacOS 9 binary release for a long time... not since v1.2.1 anyway. Am I left to compile on my own or has the Mozilla project dropped support altogether?
Yes.
--Asa
I agree with you IF the application was unimportant for you. But in a real application you have spend a considerate amount of time colleting and entering your dat, you want to upgrade, not replace.
That is why they call in upgrading sometimes....
Uninstalling Mozilla does not uninstall your profile data. It only uninstalls the application. If you uninstall Mozilla and then install a new version you'll still have your bookmarks, mail, preferences, cookies, etc.
--Asa
thanks for proving my point !
Mozilla wins this by only using 2 keys, firebird needs at least three.
Mozilla requires more keystrokes than Firebird.
Mozilla: (1)Ctrl+L (2)search-term (3)Up arrow (4)Enter
Firebird: (1)Ctrl+K (2)search-term (3)Enter
--Asa
Mozilla Firebird is designed around the idea that choice is a good thing.
No, it is not. If it was, it wouldn't cut dozens upon dozens of features that people use everyday and which do not harm people who don't use them.
Dozens? Really? Like "at least 24"? Exaggeration doesn't help your point. There are not 24 features in SeaMonkey which are not in Firebird. I have a hard time counting more than a small handful. Differently presented features are not cut features.
I'm certainly no usability expert but if you really think that there's no harm to usability when you add lots of features which clutter and confuse UI then you don't have a very good understanding of usability.
And TBE is not the favorite extension of all Firebird fans. It's a popular extension but most Firebird users have probably never installed a single extension. Once again your exaggeration doesn't help make your case.
--Asa
here is an intersting website by a moz developer (which sadly is not a parody but the REAL thing.. this guy is dead serious). http://mithgol.pp.ru/Mozilla/
Except that that's not from a Mozilla developer. Sad and funny? Making up facts is kinda sad; not terribly funny.
--Asa
What if Java 1.4.2 isn't ready soon enough.
You have several choices. Use Sun's 1.4.2 beta. Wait until Sun 1.4.2 final is released. Use Blackdown's plug-in compiled with GCC 3.2 (the Sun 1.4.2 requirement is only a new compiler requirement.) Compile Mozilla yourself with an older compiler so it works with an older Java. Get someone else to compile Mozilla for you.
--Asa
"Interesting that the last great, stable RH is considered too "old" for mozilla...
Or am I just overreacting? I like my 7.3 boxes, dammit."
Yeah, forced upgrades suck, don't they? Kinda amusing tho, usually MS is the butt of that comment.
You're not being forced to upgrade anything. The mozilla.org binaries should work on stock RH7.2 and higher, and earlier 7.x if you have glibc 2.2.4 or higher. If you don't want to upgrade glibc or your OS, then feel free to compile Mozilla yourself or wait for your distro or someone else to make a build that works there.
--Asa
Interesting that the last great, stable RH is considered too "old" for mozilla...
Mozilla stock builds should run fine on stock RH7.2 and higher, and earlier 7.x if you have glibc 2.2.4 or higher.
If our binaries don't run on your version of Linux then you may have to compile it yourself or get someone to compile for you.
--Asa
http://arxiv.org/ is invaluable if you're interested in scientific publishing. It's been around for more than a decade and I know of no better research archiving and dissemination project. I imagine that it was designed for a specific community (researchers) but, as nothing but a spectator, I've found it to be a great source of information and worth visiting regularly.
--Asa
There is little doubt that there exists lots of water on Mars. GRS, onboard Mars Odyssey pretty much answered that question http://grs.lpl.arizona.edu/results/presscon2/ . The only real question now is whether or not there is any significant quantity of *liquid* water. This MOC images of Russel crater suggest recent flowing water/mud and that's the news, not that there is water, but that there seems to have been recent *flowing* water.
"Better to acknowledge the best-of-breed methodology Microsoft uses to test their OSes...."
Except that this article says nothing about the testing methodology that Microsoft uses. It describes how Microsoft helps certain customers test deployment. Deployment testing has little or nothing to do with software testing.
This is an article about how Microsoft has the budget to help "special" customers with a free "service" (not software) and frankly, the bits about offering cash-strapped school systems free consulting and test deployments sounds a lot more like a Microsoft press release than a software testing case study.
I was genuinely hoping to read about their software QA process. What a waste of 5 minutes.
--Asa
The search bar may (may) be helpful to new users, but I think most power users find it annoying.
I think just the opposite. Newbies may be happy with a limited single search engine for all searches in the Mozilla urlbar but power users like me want the flexibility different searches in their search field. I have google, google groups, google news, google images, dmoz, bbc news, salon and NASA searches all available in my search field. I can't get that power-functionality in my Mozilla urlbar.
--Asa
"Grabbing code from CVS really isn't the same, since it's changing all the time"
So pull the release tag.
--Asa
this guy, asa is the kind of guy that will soon get thousands spam...is it really a good idea to write a news submitter's email address on /. homepage, without any *anti spam trick* ?
:-)
Actually, I use Mozilla Mail (available as part of the Mozilla Application Suite or standalone as Mozilla Thunderbird) which has amazing junk-mail controls so I'm not terribly worried
--Asa
The scheduling system for checking web pages for updates and the JavaScript console are essential?
And that may very well be removed. It's mostly unused and not very well implemented.
--Asa
http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap.html
0 03_05_04_glazblogarc.html#s93853368
. html
http://daniel.glazman.free.fr/weblog/newarchive/2
http://daniel.glazman.free.fr/composer/composer++
--Asa
I am simply saying that an application (Netscape 4.x) that was written over five years ago, and does pretty much the same thing as Mozilla, is a lot, lot faster.
Wrong. Netscape 4.x doesn't even come close to supporting web content as well as Mozilla. It simply doesn't do pretty much the same thing.
--Asa
i just removed explorer.exe from my taskbar and replaced it with firebird... (it's the only way i could stop myself starting explorer).
i've been meaning to wean myself off ms for a long time, so going to give this a real try.
suggestions for best non-outlook email program?
Yes, the Mozilla Thunderbird email client which has powerful junk-mail controls and all kinds of great privacy features.
--Asa
I'm not gonna use Firebird until they support hitting down arrow to search on Google.
And what's so crazy about using the search field and saving that extra down arrow keystroke? In addition to the default Google, the search field can have literally hundreds of search engines available with a single click (including google images, groups, and news). Why would you want to use the very limited search option of Mozilla's addressfield whe you can use a powertool like Mozilla Firebird's search field? It's faster, more flexible andd requires one less keystroke.
--Asa
Yes the typical response. I'm not asking for release quality in every aspect of the product. I'm just asking that it can handle the basic function of installing itself.
:-) If you're willing to risk additional bugs then feel free to just unpack this and use it with your old profile but it's possible that something changed in how we read or write some of the profile data so you could experience problems. If you experience problems upgrading from one testing build to the other without starting fresh, please don't file bugs until you've tested with a clean profile like we suggest in the release notes.
Another thing, if it's so "pre-alpha", why does almost everything else work so well?
Lots works and lots doesn't. That's what you get with an 0.6
(And thanks for taking the time to download and test 0.5. If you actually use that as your regular browser then I strongly recommend that you get 0.6 because it really is much better.)
--Asa
Call it a troll, but I've been using .5 for a while, and am not going to upgrade until I can use my old data reliably. It took enough playing around to get some plugins working right the first time around. I don't want to play the game again.
"Call me crazy if you want. I'm using a pre-alpha snapshot from 6 months ago and I'm not about to upgrade to another pre-alpha testing build until these pre-alpha test builds are bug-free and release quality. What are those crazy open source developers smoking? "
--Asa
Get your local times here: http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/LunarEclipse.htm l
--Asa