Firefox 3.6.2 and Flickr not happy?
in [UK Mac]
|
From: D.M. Procida on 24 Mar 2010 11:23 Geoff Berrow <blthecat(a)ckdog.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. > > 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. I wouldn't. Back then, Java was this bitchin new technology that was going to change the way everyone used the net, and lots of people were rubbing themselves against its scent glands in the hope that some of the smell would come off onto them. Javascript on the other hand was an irritating way of making menus blink, that didn't always work. Daniele
From: Richard Tobin on 24 Mar 2010 13:13 In article <1jfv6fn.yajkbs1dr5sN%real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk>, D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: >I wouldn't. Back then, Java was this bitchin new technology that was >going to change the way everyone used the net, and lots of people were >rubbing themselves against its scent glands in the hope that some of the >smell would come off onto them. >Javascript on the other hand was an irritating way of making menus >blink, that didn't always work. It was surprising that Sun, who had registered the "Java" trademark, licensed it to Netscape for this purpose. Supposedly it was in return for including Java in the Netscape browser. -- Richard -- Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
From: Rowland McDonnell on 24 Mar 2010 18:53 Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote: > 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. Yuck. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Woody on 24 Mar 2010 20:43 Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote: > 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. Anything that didnt use the word java in it anywhere would be good. How about actionscript? -- Woody www.alienrat.com
From: Woody on 24 Mar 2010 20:43
Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> 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. > <snip> > Anyway, back to the point: > I would have thought the interesting point here was the distinctly odd > nature of the fix - obviously, there's some sort of fault inside Firefox > to have caused the symptoms I've seen, some sort of glitch in the code. What your fix would suggest to me has happened is that upgrading left your javascript preferences in an indetermined state, which appears to be all off (ie, virtually no permissions). I guess another state must have gone in that wasn't there previously. By changing something (anything, it isn't important which), firefox set that preference to the state you had on the UI, and thus right. So it worked again. > Obviously, it's useful for people to know about this, <snip> It is. It would be probably handy if you raised it as a bug with the firefox chaps. No, I don't know how to do that but I am sure they have a big bugtracker somewhere. It is an important thing to note. <snip> > Now, Peter, some of use the non-default installation because the Web is > unusuable without ad blocking and because it's horribly slow without > flash blocking and because it's insecure without control over scripting > and so on. Its insecure anyway. there are currently some known flaws in the firefox you are using, and any form of flash introduces a security risk. The javascript switches less so. Although it certainly isn't unusuable with the default settings, although it may be to you. -- Woody www.alienrat.com |