Firefox 3.6.2 and Flickr not happy?
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Peter Ceresole on 25 Mar 2010 10:45 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > >And you're getting abusive > > again. > > Peter, that false allegation is abusive of you: hypocrisy's okay now, is > it? At least, it's okay for Peter to be hypocritical, isn't it? No-one > else is allowed... I was friendly, helpful and polite. As so often happens, you became abusive. Although you are ill, and I try to make allowances for that, the reality is that you are a sad little creep. Good enough for you? Because it's the truth, even if you're incapable of realising it. -- Peter
From: Rowland McDonnell on 26 Mar 2010 03:27 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > >And you're getting abusive > > > again. > > > > Peter, that false allegation is abusive of you: hypocrisy's okay now, is > > it? At least, it's okay for Peter to be hypocritical, isn't it? No-one > > else is allowed... > > I was friendly, helpful and polite. More irony, Peter? It's not `friendly, helpful and polite' to do that: falsely accuse someone of abusive behaviour, and telling them that you're going away because of that. It's a form of social bullying, and it's abusive, and its grossly rude of you. > As so often happens, you became abusive. [snip] See? <sigh> What can I do? You just can't help posting your personal insults directed at me, can you? But they do not belong on this newsgroup, Peter - such remarks are off-topic, unwelcome, and make this newsgroup a worse place. So stop it, Peter - stop your abusiveness towards me, drop your personal niggling attacks, and stick to the technical matters. I remain astonished at your blinkered hypocrisy. 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: Rowland McDonnell on 26 Mar 2010 03:27 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: [snip] > > > I think the state was set manually by you, but in a different version of > > > the software. > > > > Same prefs have been there since I started using Firefox 1.5 or > > whatever. So why a hiccup moving from Firefox 3.5.blah to 3.6? > > > > And why did `everyone else' seem to not experience it? > > I would imagine that probably some other people did. > However, your installation has enough variations from standard to cause > this issue, so it is probably not common. From my observations, everyone's installation of Firefox is so far away from standard to cause anything. Since switching off *ALL* my extensions caused no changes to occur in the troublesome behaviour, which was fixed only when I prodded the Firefox prefs - well, I think that eliminates the extensions from the suspect list, don't you? > > > > Perhaps the prefs file was somehow `not right', but I had done a prefs > > > > syntax check before the fix turned up, and that reported all prefs files > > > > as okay. > > > > > > > > I've had other oddities since upgrading to Firefox 3.6 so I suspect > > > > you're on to something - it's /an/ explanation that seems to make some > > > > sort of sense, and so better than my previous `Haven't a clue'. > > > > > > > > > I guess another state must > > > > > have gone in that wasn't there previously. > > > > > > > > How do you mean. > > > > > > well, maybe in 3.6.2 there was another setting that didn't exist before? > > > > In which case, the upgrade process should deal with it seamlessly. > > It should. But it didn't, and that is why there should be a bug report. But I'm not going to do that - in order to preserve my comfort and safety. > > But there was no new setting visible in that particular bit of the prefs > > - the same controls at that point that Firefox has had since I started > > using it, and the same controls that iCab has. And probably most other > > Web browsers, if I could be bothered to check. > > I doubt it has exactly the same settings, unless they are all built from > the same code. Huh? Doubt away, chickadee. You are ignorant but your ignorance would be removed if only you *looked*. You won't do that, will you? You'll just stick to your inaccurate assumptions... > > > I don't know, I don't use firefox much, but some reason that the > > > settings didn't reflect what was actually the state of your browser. > > > > <puzzled> AFAICT, the settings *did* accurately reflect the control the > > browser exerted over Javascripts. > > I thought you said it didn't work even though the settings you had > shouldn't have stopped it? Correct. And the settings do not block the behaviour I need to see. Set 'em to anything, `Show all sizes' works. That is as expected: the settings in question have *NO LINK AT ALL* with the buggy behaviour - they shouldn't affect it in the slightest. They are irrelevant to the Javascripts in question, except that they control aspects of Javascript (but aspects that are irrelevant to the control in question). [snip] > > Yes, but it's more common for a reported problem to never be fixed and > > for me to get spammed for taking the trouble to make the bug report in > > the first place - spammed hugely for years... > > I have had that with a couple of places, although I got off those lists. > I don't know what the firefox people are like. I do: Modern free software types, and therefore dishonest and untrustworthy. > > So I'm not going to report bugs to an outfit like Mozilla. A one man > > operation, maybe - if they look trustworthy. But I won't make bug > > reports to big projects (erm, TeX-related stuff excepted - the TeX world > > is pretty benign). > > One large team I assume is like another. I know from experience that idea's not one that matches the reality of humanity. > > > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/25/pwn2own_2010_day_one/> > > > > That's one reason I have security add-ons for when I go browsing. > > > > And even with them - well, I've managed to pick up some malware. On the > > other hand, if a Web page (from a space news site - obviously got > > hacked) that I've saved happens to contain a JS that'll clobber Windoze > > via IE 6 and ActiveX and a buffer overflow attack, what do I care? > > I have been lucky with a lack of malware. No reason you should care, as > long as it isn't your browser. Wrong. 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 26 Mar 2010 05:01 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > But there was no new setting visible in that particular bit of the prefs > > > - the same controls at that point that Firefox has had since I started > > > using it, and the same controls that iCab has. And probably most other > > > Web browsers, if I could be bothered to check. > > > > I doubt it has exactly the same settings, unless they are all built from > > the same code. > > Huh? Doubt away, chickadee. You are ignorant but your ignorance would > be removed if only you *looked*. You won't do that, will you? You'll > just stick to your inaccurate assumptions... OK, you are off on one again. This is a technical newsgroup - come back when you have some technical matters to discuss without abuse -- Woody www.alienrat.com
From: Ben Shimmin on 27 Mar 2010 06:26
Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk>: > 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. It was a truly ridiculous choice. >> 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. A software vendor who write a piece of software which plays a very big role in our business has just released an extensibility framework called `Flex'. Seriously... b. -- <bas(a)bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/> `Zombies are defined by behavior and can be "explained" by many handy shortcuts: the supernatural, radiation, a virus, space visitors, secret weapons, a Harvard education and so on.' -- Roger Ebert |