Firefox 3.6.2 and Flickr not happy?
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Woody on 24 Mar 2010 10:12 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > Gremlins, I told you, bloody bloody gremlins. > > I really don't know; all I *do* know is that (I think) I am using the > default installation. Because it just works. I certainly never turned > off java. All I wish is that they hadn't named javascript a name 'to sound like it had something to do with java', as people assume it does when there is no connection at all. -- Woody
From: Peter Ceresole on 24 Mar 2010 10:17 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > All I wish is that they hadn't named javascript a name 'to sound like it > had something to do with java', as people assume it does when there is > no connection at all. True enough. To be fair, they do call it 'Javascript' in the Firefox prefs, and as a plonking user although I did know the distinction, it never made any difference to me anyway. Using the Mac always had that wonderful advantage; it preserved me from knowledge. -- Peter
From: Geoff Berrow on 24 Mar 2010 10:36 On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:12:05 +0000, usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk (Woody) wrote: >Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: >> >> > Gremlins, I told you, bloody bloody gremlins. >> >> I really don't know; all I *do* know is that (I think) I am using the >> default installation. Because it just works. I certainly never turned >> off java. > >All I wish is that they hadn't named javascript a name 'to sound like it >had something to do with java', as people assume it does when there is >no connection at all. Yes, you would have thought they would have seen that one coming. Especially as with the way things are going, JS is being used more and more. -- Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email) It's only Usenet, no one dies. My opinions, not the committee's, mine. Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker
From: Woody on 24 Mar 2010 10:46 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > All I wish is that they hadn't named javascript a name 'to sound like it > > had something to do with java', as people assume it does when there is > > no connection at all. > > True enough. To be fair, they do call it 'Javascript' in the Firefox > prefs, and as a plonking user although I did know the distinction, it > never made any difference to me anyway. > > Using the Mac always had that wonderful advantage; it preserved me from > knowledge. In this case yes, but the amount of times people have asked me about a problem they had where they were telling me that there was a problem with java, so I have gone down a blind alley of trying to figure out what the java issue is on the phone for 5 minutes before it turns out it is a javascript error. Still, better than this months bugbear. I have just had the 10th person this month tell me they had a problem with an adobe pro file. -- Woody
From: Chris Ridd on 24 Mar 2010 11:13
On 2010-03-24 14:12:05 +0000, Woody said: > Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Gremlins, I told you, bloody bloody gremlins. >> >> I really don't know; all I *do* know is that (I think) I am using the >> default installation. Because it just works. I certainly never turned >> off java. > > All I wish is that they hadn't named javascript a name 'to sound like it > had something to do with java', as people assume it does when there is > no connection at all. Livescript would be a good name. -- Chris |