Lightning!

I'm using Puppy Linux on an old box.  The version of SM is 
2.39.  I've looked at the extension page for Lightning, and 
no version seems to work on 2.39.  Can something be done to
get Lightning to work in this version of SM?  Thanks.
0
Jeffrey
5/23/2018 7:53:02 PM
mozilla.support.seamonkey 13113 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

11 Replies
111 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 8

Jeffrey Needle wrote:
> I'm using Puppy Linux on an old box.  The version of SM is
> 2.39.  I've looked at the extension page for Lightning, and
> no version seems to work on 2.39.  Can something be done to
> get Lightning to work in this version of SM?  Thanks.
> 

As far as I know you don't need Lightning with ver.2.49.3, everything is 
builtin, be sure that you have flash on

-- 
https://facebook.com/gerardjan.vinkesteijn

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0 
SeaMonkey/2.49.3
Build identifier: 20180403170715

Fedora 20 Linux
0
GerardJan
5/23/2018 8:38:10 PM
On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 4:38:16 AM UTC+8, GerardJan wrote:
> Jeffrey Needle wrote:
> > I'm using Puppy Linux on an old box.  The version of SM is
> > 2.39.  I've looked at the extension page for Lightning, and
> > no version seems to work on 2.39.  Can something be done to
> > get Lightning to work in this version of SM?  Thanks.
> > 
> 
> As far as I know you don't need Lightning with ver.2.49.3, everything is 
> builtin, be sure that you have flash on
> 
> -- 
> https://facebook.com/gerardjan.vinkesteijn
> 
> User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0 
> SeaMonkey/2.49.3
> Build identifier: 20180403170715
> 
> Fedora 20 Linux

Hmmm.  Flash not helping.  I'll update and see what happens.  Thanks.
0
Jeffrey
5/23/2018 9:01:39 PM
On 5/23/18 5:01 PM, Jeffrey Needle wrote:
> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 4:38:16 AM UTC+8, GerardJan wrote:
>> Jeffrey Needle wrote:
>>> I'm using Puppy Linux on an old box.  The version of SM is
>>> 2.39.  I've looked at the extension page for Lightning, and
>>> no version seems to work on 2.39.  Can something be done to
>>> get Lightning to work in this version of SM?  Thanks.
>>>
>>
>> As far as I know you don't need Lightning with ver.2.49.3, everything is
>> builtin, be sure that you have flash on
>>
>> -- 
>> https://facebook.com/gerardjan.vinkesteijn
>>
>> User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0
>> SeaMonkey/2.49.3
>> Build identifier: 20180403170715
>>
>> Fedora 20 Linux
> 
> Hmmm.  Flash not helping.  I'll update and see what happens.  Thanks.
> 

The Flash plugin has nothing to do with the Lightning calendar extension.

The correct one for SM 2.39 is 4.4b2 which can be found here.

<https://archive.mozilla.org/pub/calendar/lightning/candidates/4.4b2-candidates/build1/>

A list of calendar versions and what version of TB and SM they work with 
is here.

<https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Calendar/Calendar_Versions>

-- 
GO GOLDEN KNIGHTS!
National Popular Vote <http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/>
Ubuntu 16.04LTS - Unity Desktop
0
WaltS48
5/23/2018 10:44:22 PM
Jeffrey Needle:

>I'm using Puppy Linux on an old box.  The version of SM is 
>2.39.  I've looked at the extension page for Lightning, and 
>no version seems to work on 2.39.  Can something be done to
>get Lightning to work in this version of SM?  Thanks.

My archive of self compiled SMs contains several SM 2.39a1 together with
the compatible lightning versions. The first one is

hafi@i5-64 /archiv/seam/i5/1506300032 $ tree -hD
..
├── [2.0M Jun 30  2015]  lightning-4.4a1.en-US.linux-x86_64.xpi
├── [ 50M Jun 30  2015]  seamonkey-2.39a1-h.en-US.linux-x86_64.tar.bz2
└── [ 345 Jun 30  2015]  seamonkey.SHA512SUMS

But notice, that these are not normal releases but Trunk versions. The
last SM 2.39a1, the one before SM 2.40a1, is this one:

hafi@i5-64 /archiv/seam/i5/1508100127 $ tree -hD
..
├── [1.5M Aug 10  2015]  lightning-4.4a1.en-US.linux-x86_64.xpi
├── [ 51M Aug 10  2015]  seamonkey-2.39a1-h.en-US.linux-x86_64.tar.bz2
└── [ 345 Aug 10  2015]  seamonkey.SHA512SUMS

It's possible that you may be interested in one of these lightnings.

Hartmut
0
Hartmut
5/24/2018 2:10:19 AM
On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 10:10:25 AM UTC+8, Hartmut Figge wrote:
> Jeffrey Needle:
>=20
> >I'm using Puppy Linux on an old box.  The version of SM is=20
> >2.39.  I've looked at the extension page for Lightning, and=20
> >no version seems to work on 2.39.  Can something be done to
> >get Lightning to work in this version of SM?  Thanks.
>=20
> My archive of self compiled SMs contains several SM 2.39a1 together with
> the compatible lightning versions. The first one is
>=20
> hafi@i5-64 /archiv/seam/i5/1506300032 $ tree -hD
> .
> =E2=94=9C=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 [2.0M Jun 30  2015]  lightning-4.4a1.en-US.li=
nux-x86_64.xpi
> =E2=94=9C=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 [ 50M Jun 30  2015]  seamonkey-2.39a1-h.en-US=
..linux-x86_64.tar.bz2
> =E2=94=94=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 [ 345 Jun 30  2015]  seamonkey.SHA512SUMS
>=20
> But notice, that these are not normal releases but Trunk versions. The
> last SM 2.39a1, the one before SM 2.40a1, is this one:
>=20
> hafi@i5-64 /archiv/seam/i5/1508100127 $ tree -hD
> .
> =E2=94=9C=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 [1.5M Aug 10  2015]  lightning-4.4a1.en-US.li=
nux-x86_64.xpi
> =E2=94=9C=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 [ 51M Aug 10  2015]  seamonkey-2.39a1-h.en-US=
..linux-x86_64.tar.bz2
> =E2=94=94=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 [ 345 Aug 10  2015]  seamonkey.SHA512SUMS
>=20
> It's possible that you may be interested in one of these lightnings.
>=20
> Hartmut

Oh my goodness.  Well, since I was having a big problem with=20
this, I did another search -- an updated SM that will run on
Puppy.  Happily, I found 2.49.3.  All is well with the world.
Thanks to all for the help.
0
Jeffrey
5/24/2018 2:21:16 AM
Hartmut Figge:

>├── [2.0M Jun 30  2015]  lightning-4.4a1.en-US.linux-x86_64.xpi

Hm. My SM has chosen us-ascii instead of utf-8 for unknown reasons.
Well, it too is a SM-Trunk. *g* So forget the garbage at the beginning
of the lines. No important information.

Hartmut
0
Hartmut
5/24/2018 2:22:55 AM
Jeffrey Needle:

>All is well with the world.

:)

Hartmut
0
Hartmut
5/24/2018 2:27:07 AM
Hartmut Figge wrote:
> Hartmut Figge:
> 
>> ├── [2.0M Jun 30  2015]  lightning-4.4a1.en-US.linux-x86_64.xpi
> 
> Hm. My SM has chosen us-ascii instead of utf-8 for unknown reasons.
> Well, it too is a SM-Trunk. *g* So forget the garbage at the beginning
> of the lines. No important information.
> 
> Hartmut
> 

\|@#~��{[]}\
�!"�$%&/()=?�

sincerely,
-- 
https://facebook.com/gerardjan.vinkesteijn

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0 
SeaMonkey/2.49.3
Build identifier: 20180403170715

Fedora 20 Linux
0
GerardJan
5/24/2018 2:27:41 PM
Hartmut Figge wrote:
> Hartmut Figge:
> 
>> ├── [2.0M Jun 30  2015]  lightning-4.4a1.en-US.linux-x86_64.xpi
> 
> Hm. My SM has chosen us-ascii instead of utf-8 for unknown reasons.
> Well, it too is a SM-Trunk. *g* So forget the garbage at the beginning
> of the lines. No important information.
> 
> Hartmut
> 

It's Simple Text in a Newsgroup.
We'd presumably all have to set our clients to utf-8 in order to 
interpret ├──, the two Euro question is: is it worth it?  Nope.


-- 
spammus ergo sum
0
IRRITATING
5/26/2018 7:43:59 AM
IRRITATING SPAMMER:
>Hartmut Figge wrote:
>> Hartmut Figge:

>>> ├── [2.0M Jun 30  2015]  lightning-4.4a1.en-US.linux-x86_64.xpi
>> 
>> Hm. My SM has chosen us-ascii instead of utf-8 for unknown reasons.
>> Well, it too is a SM-Trunk. *g* So forget the garbage at the beginning
>> of the lines. No important information.
>
>It's Simple Text in a Newsgroup.
>We'd presumably all have to set our clients to utf-8 in order to 
>interpret ├──, the two Euro question is: is it worth it?  Nope.

Nothing needs to be done if Content-Type and Content-Transfer-Encoding
are correct. My SM-Trunk should have detected the presence of utf-8
chars in the message and used the proper declarations.

As to override the false us-ascii with the correct utf-8, well, isn't is
nice to know the garbage isnt't important? ;)

Hartmut
0
Hartmut
5/26/2018 5:08:49 PM
Hartmut Figge wrote:
> IRRITATING SPAMMER:
>> Hartmut Figge wrote:
>>> Hartmut Figge:
> 
>>>> ├── [2.0M Jun 30  2015]  lightning-4.4a1.en-US.linux-x86_64.xpi
>>>
>>> Hm. My SM has chosen us-ascii instead of utf-8 for unknown reasons.
>>> Well, it too is a SM-Trunk. *g* So forget the garbage at the beginning
>>> of the lines. No important information.
>>
>> It's Simple Text in a Newsgroup.
>> We'd presumably all have to set our clients to utf-8 in order to
>> interpret ├──, the two Euro question is: is it worth it?  Nope.
> 
> Nothing needs to be done if Content-Type and Content-Transfer-Encoding
> are correct. My SM-Trunk should have detected the presence of utf-8
> chars in the message and used the proper declarations.
> 
> As to override the false us-ascii with the correct utf-8, well, isn't is
> nice to know the garbage isnt't important? ;)
> 
> Hartmut
> 

I just saved approx.20MB by compacting

-- 
https://facebook.com/gerardjan.vinkesteijn

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0 
SeaMonkey/2.49.3
Build identifier: 20180403170715

Fedora 20 Linux
0
GerardJan
5/26/2018 6:15:21 PM
Reply: