Mozilla's view source bug -- the one where it reloads the page from the server instead of displaying the cached source -- THE most frequently reported bug in Bugzilla -- HAS FINALLY BEEN FIXED!!!!:-D
I just tried removing explorer.exe from both dllcache and winnt. At lasted for about 20 seconds, then BOTH of them suddenly reappered. So Windows apparently store some secret alternative backup elsewhere, which is reserved for the truly necessary files (since Outlook Express isn't in it).
But then if our president can get a blowjob and get away with it.. Why can't Bill screw over companys.
That argument is complete bullshit. Bill Clinton cheated on his wife -- so what? I could understand if she got angry, but why did it have to be made into such a big thing?
You [meaning "Americans"] even talked about deposing (is that the right word?) him. Because he had a blowjob? Is that illegal? Honestly, I don't get it.
And I also don't get how you can compare this to Microsoft's business methods. How are these two things even remotely related?
> It is like Ford saying "Here's your new car, it > comes with tires, but if you want another brand > of tires, you still have to keep these four tires > in your car otherwise it wont work..."
It's not impossible to delete the files MS has placed under Windows System File Protection or whatever they call it. If fact, it's very easy. You have of course tried to just select the file in Explorer and hit Delete, right? And noticed that it got deleted all right but 10 seconds later it was magically recreated? You can work around that. Just open your C:\winnt\system32\dllcache directory (or wherever you have installed your Windows). You'll find that this dir contains copies of all the files which are recreated. Just delete them from dllcache first, and then delete them from there normal location. Then they won't reappear.
I have successfully removed Outlook Express from my system in this way.:-)
My theory (call me paranoid) is that there are time loops in there to make the free version worse than the proprietary version
That is simply not possible, since the free version is, well, free. Since the entire source code is available, any deliberate slowdowns would be discovered in no time. The source of Mozilla, for example, can be found right here. Feel free to go through it if you like.
A more likely reason is that the free version has some debug routines turned on by default which are switched off in the proprietary version.
The Scripts & Windows panel under Preferences|Advanced. You can prevent popups, block target="_blank", prevent pages from positioning themselves out of your screen or from flipping under/over existing windows, block status bar scrollers and/or stupid link descriptions which prevents you from seeing where a link will take you... and more!
Custom bookmark keywords. I never type "slashdot.org", I just type "/." in my location bar, and it works. When I want to look up an RFC, I just type the word "rfc", a space, the number, and hit enter. "rfc 2616" is expanded to "http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt". "whois slashdot.org" gives me whois info on slashdot.org, "acro ITYM" goes to acronymfinder.com and searches for ITYM, "cache http://mozilla.org/" gives me Google's cache of mozilla.org, "whats yahoo.com" asks Netcraft which web server Yahoo is running, "v yahoo.com" asks W3C whether they use valid HTML or not. You create these keywords yourself. They truly rock.
Links toolbar. Not really a killer feature, but pretty handy. The links toolbar is Mozilla's support for HTML's <link> element. <link> is used to group pages logically together. If pages use <link> and you use Mozilla, you will have a toolbar with links to the next/previous Slashdot story, next/previous Bugzilla bug, next/previous set of pornographic thumbs, or whatever you are currently looking at. Though <link> has been part of the HTML standard since the first version ever (version 2.0), only Mozilla, ICab and Lynx support it (IIRC).
And a lot of other things which I am currently far too tired to remember. Goodnight.
That script gives you the current Document Object Model of the page you are viewing. IOW, if the page contains some JavaScript which changes some images, adds some text, or in some other way modify the page, you will get the source code including those changes. You will not get the original source.
right-clicking to select "open in new window" is slow in IE because IE requires two clicks for context menus.
Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean -- Mozilla requires two clicks as well, and will do so until bug 89308, which I notice you have voted for, is fixed.
I've run into the very same problem just yesterday, actually. My solution was the same as yours (to add a P3P header), but somehow I feel that IE's behavior in this case is rather buggy.
I understand why it can be considered a privacy issue when DoubleClick sets a cookie which is sent back to them every time you visit a site which use DoubleClick for banner ads, but instead of completely blocking "third party" cookies which doesn't have P3P headers, wouldn't it be more correct to accept them but rather restrict them to the same site?
For example, if I visit site A, which uses DoubleClick, and DoubleClick sets a cookie, and I then visit site B, which also uses DoubleClick, I do not want the cookie which DoubleClick set when I was viewing site A to be sent to DoubleClick again. However, I do not see a problem with DoubleClick being able to set the cookie when I visit site A if the cookie is only sent to DoubleClick when I view site A.
What I'm trying to say is this: If your site didn't send the P3P header, shouldn't IE6 still accept your cookie when your site is opened in frames, but just restrict it so it will only be sent to your server when your site is being viewed through that frameset, in other words NOT send it if I go directly to your site or view it inside a frameset at some other site? Is this a bug in IE?
someone claimed this was new in.9.8, too. it wasn't new then, either.
What, blocking target="_blank"? Well, the functionality has existed since Mozilla 0.8, but you had to modify your preference file by hand to enable it. My patch for adding this to the Scripts & Windows panel was checked in the 25th of February, so 0.9.9 is definitely the first milestone release that has it. See bug 78037 for details.
I'm not sure how to do this in the Modern theme, but if you're using Classic, just find your Mozilla profile directory, open the subdirectory called "chrome", edit the file "userChrome.css", and paste these lines at the bottom:
Slashdot Mirror
But it is very, very funny when you're the one dropping them. Believe me.
PigeonRank is real - GoogleWhack!
;-))
(Oh, and notice how the spellchecker suggests that you probably meant "PageRank"...
Oh, and I should probably mention that this is not an April fools joke.
Mozilla's view source bug -- the one where it reloads the page from the server instead of displaying the cached source -- THE most frequently reported bug in Bugzilla -- HAS FINALLY BEEN FIXED!!!! :-D
.
The checkin was made less than an hour ago! See http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55583
Here in Denmark, it's exactly three minutes past midnight.
Males hardly ever have to bear the brunt of such behaviour and so have no idea about what is offensive and what is not offensive.
As a male, I consider that an extremely sexist statement.
Could have been worse... the gf could be having sex with the pengu... uhm, never mind.
I just tried removing explorer.exe from both dllcache and winnt. At lasted for about 20 seconds, then BOTH of them suddenly reappered. So Windows apparently store some secret alternative backup elsewhere, which is reserved for the truly necessary files (since Outlook Express isn't in it).
But then if our president can get a blowjob and get away with it.. Why can't Bill screw over companys.
That argument is complete bullshit. Bill Clinton cheated on his wife -- so what? I could understand if she got angry, but why did it have to be made into such a big thing?
You [meaning "Americans"] even talked about deposing (is that the right word?) him. Because he had a blowjob? Is that illegal? Honestly, I don't get it.
And I also don't get how you can compare this to Microsoft's business methods. How are these two things even remotely related?
> It is like Ford saying "Here's your new car, it
> comes with tires, but if you want another brand
> of tires, you still have to keep these four tires
> in your car otherwise it wont work..."
It's not impossible to delete the files MS has placed under Windows System File Protection or whatever they call it. If fact, it's very easy. You have of course tried to just select the file in Explorer and hit Delete, right? And noticed that it got deleted all right but 10 seconds later it was magically recreated? You can work around that. Just open your C:\winnt\system32\dllcache directory (or wherever you have installed your Windows). You'll find that this dir contains copies of all the files which are recreated. Just delete them from dllcache first, and then delete them from there normal location. Then they won't reappear.
I have successfully removed Outlook Express from my system in this way.
My theory (call me paranoid) is that there are time loops in there to make the free version worse than the proprietary version
That is simply not possible, since the free version is, well, free. Since the entire source code is available, any deliberate slowdowns would be discovered in no time. The source of Mozilla, for example, can be found right here. Feel free to go through it if you like.
A more likely reason is that the free version has some debug routines turned on by default which are switched off in the proprietary version.
Aaaah, I see... :-)
And a lot of other things which I am currently far too tired to remember. Goodnight.
Still no home button - Not true. It's in the "links" bar, which makes some sense.
7 which is about editing the contents of a <textarea> in an external editor.
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89350
No view source in external editor - Gosh, that WOULD be nice, wouldn't it?
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35268
See also http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10376
Mozilla 1.0 party.
Bugzilla is your friend.
That script gives you the current Document Object Model of the page you are viewing. IOW, if the page contains some JavaScript which changes some images, adds some text, or in some other way modify the page, you will get the source code including those changes. You will not get the original source.
right-clicking to select "open in new window" is slow in IE because IE requires two clicks for context menus.
Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean -- Mozilla requires two clicks as well, and will do so until bug 89308, which I notice you have voted for, is fixed.
???
I sure hope so. If all trojans were Microsoft-made, they'd probably be ActiveX-based and thus only work for IE users. What a relief that would be.
I've run into the very same problem just yesterday, actually. My solution was the same as yours (to add a P3P header), but somehow I feel that IE's behavior in this case is rather buggy.
I understand why it can be considered a privacy issue when DoubleClick sets a cookie which is sent back to them every time you visit a site which use DoubleClick for banner ads, but instead of completely blocking "third party" cookies which doesn't have P3P headers, wouldn't it be more correct to accept them but rather restrict them to the same site?
For example, if I visit site A, which uses DoubleClick, and DoubleClick sets a cookie, and I then visit site B, which also uses DoubleClick, I do not want the cookie which DoubleClick set when I was viewing site A to be sent to DoubleClick again. However, I do not see a problem with DoubleClick being able to set the cookie when I visit site A if the cookie is only sent to DoubleClick when I view site A.
What I'm trying to say is this: If your site didn't send the P3P header, shouldn't IE6 still accept your cookie when your site is opened in frames, but just restrict it so it will only be sent to your server when your site is being viewed through that frameset, in other words NOT send it if I go directly to your site or view it inside a frameset at some other site? Is this a bug in IE?
Haven't you heard? That announcement was generated by a virus.
Apparently, the domain name is included in list of queryable words, so a query on
site:samizdat.com samizdat.com
will give you all pages on samizdat.com. It generates 1,290 results, just like your workaround.
What, blocking target="_blank"? Well, the functionality has existed since Mozilla 0.8, but you had to modify your preference file by hand to enable it. My patch for adding this to the Scripts & Windows panel was checked in the 25th of February, so 0.9.9 is definitely the first milestone release that has it. See bug 78037 for details.
Uhm, substitute "throbber16-single.gif" for "throbber16-s ingle.gif" and "throbber16-anim.gif" for "throbber16-a nim.gif". Sorry.
I'm not sure how to do this in the Modern theme, but if you're using Classic, just find your Mozilla profile directory, open the subdirectory called "chrome", edit the file "userChrome.css", and paste these lines at the bottom:
.toolbarbutton-menubutton-button { .toolbarbutton-text, .toolbarbutton-text {s ingle.gif") !important;a nim.gif") !important;
.toolbarbutton-1,
min-width: 0px !important;
text-align: center !important;
}
#nav-bar-inner {
margin: 0px !important;
}
.toolbarbutton-menubutton-button >
.toolbarbutton-1 >
display: none !important;
}
#navigator-throbber {
list-style-image: url("chrome://communicator/skin/brand/throbber16-
}
#navigator-throbber[busy="true"] {
list-style-image: url("chrome://communicator/skin/brand/throbber16-
}