Mozilla seamonkey

http://www.mozilla.org/seamonkey-transition.html

Think this must be the worst news the I have read from mozilla.org.

I cannot see why you are doing this becouse sea-monkey is the base of 
the mozilla.org it was therefor it was started in the first place.

If I remeber correctly.

I prefer seamonkey over firefox along way.

0
alphadec
3/12/2005 11:41:52 AM
netscape.mozilla.general 7061 articles. 0 followers. Follow

58 Replies
675 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 25

alphadec wrote:
> http://www.mozilla.org/seamonkey-transition.html
> 
> Think this must be the worst news the I have read from mozilla.org.
> 
> I cannot see why you are doing this becouse sea-monkey is the base of 
> the mozilla.org it was therefor it was started in the first place.
> 
> If I remeber correctly.
> 
> I prefer seamonkey over firefox along way.
> 

Hi

there is already a discussion on netscape.public.mozilla.seamonkey.

Carsten
0
Carsten
3/12/2005 12:11:09 PM
alphadec wrote:
> http://www.mozilla.org/seamonkey-transition.html
> 
> Think this must be the worst news the I have read from mozilla.org.
> 
> I cannot see why you are doing this becouse sea-monkey is the base of 
> the mozilla.org it was therefor it was started in the first place.
> 
> If I remeber correctly.
> 
> I prefer seamonkey over firefox along way.
> 

Ok, keep using it.  It should take a long time for it to become 
seriously obsolete.

Meanwhile, I, and millions of others, will continue to enjoy FF/TB and 
their continued development.  Everyone wins.

0
Ron
3/12/2005 7:54:44 PM
Ron Hunter wrote:
> alphadec wrote:
> 
>> http://www.mozilla.org/seamonkey-transition.html
>>
>> Think this must be the worst news the I have read from mozilla.org.
>>
>> I cannot see why you are doing this becouse sea-monkey is the base of 
>> the mozilla.org it was therefor it was started in the first place.
>>
>> If I remeber correctly.
>>
>> I prefer seamonkey over firefox along way.
>>
> 
> Ok, keep using it.  It should take a long time for it to become 
> seriously obsolete.
> 
> Meanwhile, I, and millions of others, will continue to enjoy FF/TB and 
> their continued development.  Everyone wins.
> 

Hardly.  How can you describe this as a win for everyone when the MoFo 
is discontinuing development of a product that many of us love?

Absolutely agree that others should be able to enjoy FF and TB.  Choice 
is a good thing.  This strategic decision by the MoFo REMOVES a choice 
for many of us.
0
Ed
3/12/2005 9:26:34 PM
On 12.03.2005 15:26, Ed Mullen wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> alphadec wrote:
>> 
>>> http://www.mozilla.org/seamonkey-transition.html
>>>
>>> Think this must be the worst news the I have read from mozilla.org.
>>>
>>> I cannot see why you are doing this becouse sea-monkey is the base of 
>>> the mozilla.org it was therefor it was started in the first place.
>>>
>>> If I remeber correctly.
>>>
>>> I prefer seamonkey over firefox along way.
>>>
>> 
>> Ok, keep using it.  It should take a long time for it to become 
>> seriously obsolete.
>> 
>> Meanwhile, I, and millions of others, will continue to enjoy FF/TB and 
>> their continued development.  Everyone wins.
>> 
> 
> Hardly.  How can you describe this as a win for everyone when the MoFo 
> is discontinuing development of a product that many of us love?
> 
> Absolutely agree that others should be able to enjoy FF and TB.  Choice 
> is a good thing.  This strategic decision by the MoFo REMOVES a choice 
> for many of us.

Before they announced support as an end-user application, it wasn't. So
just make like you never read the announcement and move on. :-)


-- 
Jay Garcia Netscape Champion - Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
Posting Guidelines - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org/guidelines.html
0
Jay
3/13/2005 12:49:53 AM
Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 12.03.2005 15:26, Ed Mullen wrote:
> 
>  --- Original Message ---
> 
> 
>>Ron Hunter wrote:
>>
>>>alphadec wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://www.mozilla.org/seamonkey-transition.html
>>>>
>>>>Think this must be the worst news the I have read from mozilla.org.
>>>>
>>>>I cannot see why you are doing this becouse sea-monkey is the base of 
>>>>the mozilla.org it was therefor it was started in the first place.
>>>>
>>>>If I remeber correctly.
>>>>
>>>>I prefer seamonkey over firefox along way.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Ok, keep using it.  It should take a long time for it to become 
>>>seriously obsolete.
>>>
>>>Meanwhile, I, and millions of others, will continue to enjoy FF/TB and 
>>>their continued development.  Everyone wins.
>>>
>>
>>Hardly.  How can you describe this as a win for everyone when the MoFo 
>>is discontinuing development of a product that many of us love?
>>
>>Absolutely agree that others should be able to enjoy FF and TB.  Choice 
>>is a good thing.  This strategic decision by the MoFo REMOVES a choice 
>>for many of us.
> 
> 
> Before they announced support as an end-user application, it wasn't. So
> just make like you never read the announcement and move on. :-)
> 
> 

I think Ed has moved on indeed:

http://ed.mullen.home.comcast.net/Mozilla/seamonk.html

Great page Ed, I look forward to more.

Lww
0
Leonidas
3/13/2005 12:50:30 AM
Ed Mullen wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
> 
>> alphadec wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.mozilla.org/seamonkey-transition.html
>>>
>>> Think this must be the worst news the I have read from mozilla.org.
>>>
>>> I cannot see why you are doing this becouse sea-monkey is the base of 
>>> the mozilla.org it was therefor it was started in the first place.
>>>
>>> If I remeber correctly.
>>>
>>> I prefer seamonkey over firefox along way.
>>>
>>
>> Ok, keep using it.  It should take a long time for it to become 
>> seriously obsolete.
>>
>> Meanwhile, I, and millions of others, will continue to enjoy FF/TB and 
>> their continued development.  Everyone wins.
>>
> 
> Hardly.  How can you describe this as a win for everyone when the MoFo 
> is discontinuing development of a product that many of us love?
> 
> Absolutely agree that others should be able to enjoy FF and TB.  Choice 
> is a good thing.  This strategic decision by the MoFo REMOVES a choice 
> for many of us.

No, it does NOT.  If you like the Mozilla Suite, then continue to use 
it.  It won't magically evaporate from your computer on a set date.  You 
will probably be able to use it for years before the web changes enough 
to make it impractical to use.  Meanwhile, extensions will continue to 
be written by interested parties, and FF and TB will continue to develope.

0
Ron
3/13/2005 3:07:26 AM
"alphadec" wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.general:
>http://www.mozilla.org/seamonkey-transition.html
>
>Think this must be the worst news the I have read from mozilla.org.

I'm disappointed -- the Firefox user interface is crud.

-- 

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
                                  http://OakRoadSystems.com/
0
Stan
3/13/2005 5:26:20 AM
Stan Brown wrote:
> "alphadec" wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.general:
> 
>>http://www.mozilla.org/seamonkey-transition.html
>>
>>Think this must be the worst news the I have read from mozilla.org.
> 
> 
> I'm disappointed -- the Firefox user interface is crud.
> 

Strange, the FF interface is almost identical to the Mozilla Suite 
interface, just more flexible, and customizable.
0
Ron
3/13/2005 8:04:58 AM
Stan Brown wrote:
> "alphadec" wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.general:
>>http://www.mozilla.org/seamonkey-transition.html

>>Think this must be the worst news the I have read from mozilla.org.

> I'm disappointed -- the Firefox user interface is crud.

Care to substantiate that, or are you just driving by?

-- 
DC              Linux RU #1000111011000111001

Customize Xnews - http://dcicons.fateback.com
0
DC
3/13/2005 3:01:33 PM
"DC" wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.general:
>Stan Brown wrote:
>> "alphadec" wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.general:
>>>http://www.mozilla.org/seamonkey-transition.html
>>>Think this must be the worst news the I have read from mozilla.org.
>
>> I'm disappointed -- the Firefox user interface is crud.
>
>Care to substantiate that, or are you just driving by?

What "substantiate"? I downloaded FF, tried it: most of the things 
I needed to set, which I could set though the UI in Mozilla, could 
not be set in FF without going to about:config.

-- 

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
                                  http://OakRoadSystems.com/
0
Stan
3/13/2005 3:50:14 PM
On 13.03.2005 09:50, Stan Brown wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> "DC" wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.general:
>>Stan Brown wrote:
>>> "alphadec" wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.general:
>>>>http://www.mozilla.org/seamonkey-transition.html
>>>>Think this must be the worst news the I have read from mozilla.org.
>>
>>> I'm disappointed -- the Firefox user interface is crud.
>>
>>Care to substantiate that, or are you just driving by?
> 
> What "substantiate"? I downloaded FF, tried it: most of the things 
> I needed to set, which I could set though the UI in Mozilla, could 
> not be set in FF without going to about:config.
> 

This means that Moz carries more UI baggage in that case. Care to expand
on that?


-- 
Jay Garcia Netscape Champion - Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
Posting Guidelines - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org/guidelines.html
0
Jay
3/13/2005 6:44:54 PM
Stan Brown wrote:
> "DC" wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.general:
> 
>>Stan Brown wrote:
>>
>>>"alphadec" wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.general:
>>>
>>>>http://www.mozilla.org/seamonkey-transition.html
>>>>Think this must be the worst news the I have read from mozilla.org.
>>
>>>I'm disappointed -- the Firefox user interface is crud.
>>
>>Care to substantiate that, or are you just driving by?
> 
> 
> What "substantiate"? I downloaded FF, tried it: most of the things 
> I needed to set, which I could set though the UI in Mozilla, could 
> not be set in FF without going to about:config.
> 

So, in that it didn't satisfy YOUR particular, individual, and probably 
unusual, needs, it's crap.  Ok, now I understand.  You might look up the 
meaning of 'ethnocentrism'.
0
Ron
3/13/2005 7:55:31 PM
Stan Brown wrote:
> "DC" wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.general:
> 
>>Stan Brown wrote:
>>
>>>"alphadec" wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.general:
>>>
>>>>http://www.mozilla.org/seamonkey-transition.html
>>>>Think this must be the worst news the I have read from mozilla.org.
>>
>>>I'm disappointed -- the Firefox user interface is crud.
>>
>>Care to substantiate that, or are you just driving by?
> 
> 
> What "substantiate"? I downloaded FF, tried it: most of the things 
> I needed to set, which I could set though the UI in Mozilla, could 
> not be set in FF without going to about:config.
> 

Try the Configuration Mania extension, it adds a Mozilla like preference 
window to FF.

Lee
0
Leonidas
3/13/2005 11:29:49 PM
Stan Brown wrote:
> "DC" wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.general:
>>Stan Brown wrote:
>>> "alphadec" wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.general:
>>>>http://www.mozilla.org/seamonkey-transition.html
>>>>Think this must be the worst news the I have read from mozilla.org.

>>> I'm disappointed -- the Firefox user interface is crud.

>>Care to substantiate that, or are you just driving by?

> What "substantiate"? I downloaded FF, tried it: most of the things 
> I needed to set, which I could set though the UI in Mozilla, could 
> not be set in FF without going to about:config.

Could you try and be a bit more vacuous?  *sigh*

-- 
DC              Linux RU #1000111011000111001

Customize Xnews - http://dcicons.fateback.com
0
DC
3/14/2005 12:26:25 AM
Jay Garcia wrote:

> On 13.03.2005 09:50, Stan Brown wrote:
> 
>  --- Original Message ---
> 
> 
>>"DC" wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.general:
>>
>>>Stan Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>>"alphadec" wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.general:
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.mozilla.org/seamonkey-transition.html
>>>>>Think this must be the worst news the I have read from mozilla.org.
>>>
>>>>I'm disappointed -- the Firefox user interface is crud.
>>>
>>>Care to substantiate that, or are you just driving by?
>>
>>What "substantiate"? I downloaded FF, tried it: most of the things 
>>I needed to set, which I could set though the UI in Mozilla, could 
>>not be set in FF without going to about:config.
>>
> 
> 
> This means that Moz carries more UI baggage in that case. Care to expand
> on that?
> 
> 

Yes, Jay, I will.

As I've discussed before, and documented at 
http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/compare.html, this notion of bloat and 
baggage may well be true in purely quantitative terms (lines of code) 
but the performance differences compared to a combination of FF and TB 
are negligible on most systems sold in (and I'll be conservative here) 
the last three years.

So, it seems disadvantageous to give up a rich UI in exchange for (in 
real-life performance terms) a trivial savings in disk space and load 
time.  Further, if a major premise of FF/TB is to make it easier to use 
than the Suite for average users, taking configuration ability out of 
the UI and suggesting that those users diddle with about:config is 
laughable.  I'm willing to listen to arguments that about:config is 
better for average users than clicking through a series of menu choices. 
  But I have a hunch I'll still be laughing.

Oh, and, if I understand it correctly, TB doesn't have about:config.  So 
these average users must resort to hacking a text configuration file 
full of cryptic pref settings.  Hardly seems like a very user-friendly 
design approach.

Sorry, the issue of "baggage" makes zero sense to me in this argument.

-- 
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/moz.html
http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/seamonk.html
0
Ed
3/14/2005 2:32:34 AM
On 13.03.2005 20:32, Ed Mullen wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> Jay Garcia wrote:
> 
>> On 13.03.2005 09:50, Stan Brown wrote:
>> 
>>  --- Original Message ---
>> 
>> 
>>>"DC" wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.general:
>>>
>>>>Stan Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"alphadec" wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.general:
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.mozilla.org/seamonkey-transition.html
>>>>>>Think this must be the worst news the I have read from mozilla.org.
>>>>
>>>>>I'm disappointed -- the Firefox user interface is crud.
>>>>
>>>>Care to substantiate that, or are you just driving by?
>>>
>>>What "substantiate"? I downloaded FF, tried it: most of the things 
>>>I needed to set, which I could set though the UI in Mozilla, could 
>>>not be set in FF without going to about:config.
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> This means that Moz carries more UI baggage in that case. Care to expand
>> on that?
>> 
>> 
> 
> Yes, Jay, I will.
> 
> As I've discussed before, and documented at 
> http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/compare.html, this notion of bloat and 
> baggage may well be true in purely quantitative terms (lines of code) 
> but the performance differences compared to a combination of FF and TB 
> are negligible on most systems sold in (and I'll be conservative here) 
> the last three years.
> 
> So, it seems disadvantageous to give up a rich UI in exchange for (in 
> real-life performance terms) a trivial savings in disk space and load 
> time.  Further, if a major premise of FF/TB is to make it easier to use 
> than the Suite for average users, taking configuration ability out of 
> the UI and suggesting that those users diddle with about:config is 
> laughable.  I'm willing to listen to arguments that about:config is 
> better for average users than clicking through a series of menu choices. 
>   But I have a hunch I'll still be laughing.
> 
> Oh, and, if I understand it correctly, TB doesn't have about:config.  So 
> these average users must resort to hacking a text configuration file 
> full of cryptic pref settings.  Hardly seems like a very user-friendly 
> design approach.
> 
> Sorry, the issue of "baggage" makes zero sense to me in this argument.
> 

Thanks Stan ... er, I mean Ed. 8-)


-- 
Jay Garcia Netscape Champion - Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
Posting Guidelines - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org/guidelines.html
0
Jay
3/14/2005 2:47:55 AM
Ed Mullen wrote:
> Jay Garcia wrote:
> 
>> On 13.03.2005 09:50, Stan Brown wrote:
>>
>>  --- Original Message ---
>>
>>
>>> "DC" wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.general:
>>>
>>>> Stan Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "alphadec" wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.general:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.mozilla.org/seamonkey-transition.html
>>>>>> Think this must be the worst news the I have read from mozilla.org.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I'm disappointed -- the Firefox user interface is crud.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Care to substantiate that, or are you just driving by?
>>>
>>>
>>> What "substantiate"? I downloaded FF, tried it: most of the things I 
>>> needed to set, which I could set though the UI in Mozilla, could not 
>>> be set in FF without going to about:config.
>>>
>>
>>
>> This means that Moz carries more UI baggage in that case. Care to expand
>> on that?
>>
>>
> 
> Yes, Jay, I will.
> 
> As I've discussed before, and documented at 
> http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/compare.html, this notion of bloat and 
> baggage may well be true in purely quantitative terms (lines of code) 
> but the performance differences compared to a combination of FF and TB 
> are negligible on most systems sold in (and I'll be conservative here) 
> the last three years.
> 
> So, it seems disadvantageous to give up a rich UI in exchange for (in 
> real-life performance terms) a trivial savings in disk space and load 
> time.  Further, if a major premise of FF/TB is to make it easier to use 
> than the Suite for average users, taking configuration ability out of 
> the UI and suggesting that those users diddle with about:config is 
> laughable.  I'm willing to listen to arguments that about:config is 
> better for average users than clicking through a series of menu choices. 
>  But I have a hunch I'll still be laughing.
> 
> Oh, and, if I understand it correctly, TB doesn't have about:config.  So 
> these average users must resort to hacking a text configuration file 
> full of cryptic pref settings.  Hardly seems like a very user-friendly 
> design approach.
> 
> Sorry, the issue of "baggage" makes zero sense to me in this argument.
> 

There is a great AboutConfig extension at Mozdev that works beautifully 
in TB.

Lee
0
Leonidas
3/14/2005 3:27:14 AM
Leonidas Jones wrote:

> Ed Mullen wrote:
> 
>> Jay Garcia wrote:
>>
>>> On 13.03.2005 09:50, Stan Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>  --- Original Message ---
>>>
>>>
>>>> "DC" wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.general:
>>>>
>>>>> Stan Brown wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "alphadec" wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.general:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.mozilla.org/seamonkey-transition.html
>>>>>>> Think this must be the worst news the I have read from mozilla.org.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm disappointed -- the Firefox user interface is crud.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Care to substantiate that, or are you just driving by?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What "substantiate"? I downloaded FF, tried it: most of the things I 
>>>> needed to set, which I could set though the UI in Mozilla, could not 
>>>> be set in FF without going to about:config.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This means that Moz carries more UI baggage in that case. Care to expand
>>> on that?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, Jay, I will.
>>
>> As I've discussed before, and documented at 
>> http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/compare.html, this notion of bloat and 
>> baggage may well be true in purely quantitative terms (lines of code) 
>> but the performance differences compared to a combination of FF and TB 
>> are negligible on most systems sold in (and I'll be conservative here) 
>> the last three years.
>>
>> So, it seems disadvantageous to give up a rich UI in exchange for (in 
>> real-life performance terms) a trivial savings in disk space and load 
>> time.  Further, if a major premise of FF/TB is to make it easier to 
>> use than the Suite for average users, taking configuration ability out 
>> of the UI and suggesting that those users diddle with about:config is 
>> laughable.  I'm willing to listen to arguments that about:config is 
>> better for average users than clicking through a series of menu 
>> choices.  But I have a hunch I'll still be laughing.
>>
>> Oh, and, if I understand it correctly, TB doesn't have about:config.  
>> So these average users must resort to hacking a text configuration 
>> file full of cryptic pref settings.  Hardly seems like a very 
>> user-friendly design approach.
>>
>> Sorry, the issue of "baggage" makes zero sense to me in this argument.
>>
> 
> There is a great AboutConfig extension at Mozdev that works beautifully 
> in TB.
> 
> Lee

Yes, I noticed a post just a bit ago about that in another thread or 
group.  I went to the page (http://aboutconfig.mozdev.org/).  And 
totally cracked up when, in the first paragraph, I read:

"Make sure you know what you are doing! If you don't know "about:config" 
you probably don't want to use AboutConfig."

I will not comment here further on that but I have added a few new 
things to "seamonk.html." :-)

-- 
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/moz.html
http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/seamonk.html
0
Ed
3/14/2005 3:57:06 AM
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:32:34 -0500, Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:

> I'm willing to listen to arguments that about:config is 
>better for average users than clicking through a series of menu choices. 
>  But I have a hunch I'll still be laughing.

OK.  I note your term "average users".  That is pretty subjective.  How
about people with 20 years experience of file manipulation including some
system files? I suppose that group would be considered "average" to the
machine language programmer who would view the GUI dependent as totally
clueless -- but maybe not point that out or say so.

Seeing your last message in particular about how bookmarks.html is plain
text in edit mode, i know that you realize that their is no magic
here.....these are just files.  Remaining in a pure WYSIWYG environment does
lead one to believe that somehow magic *is* involved and it must be done
with smoke and mirrors.

Sometimes a direct edit is actually faster than dialog by dialog GUI
approach.  It has changed greatly as CPUs have exponentially increased in
power from the days when it was always faster.  Those that used win 3.1 on a
286 can attest to that.  But this is today, not a decade+ ago and speed of
dialog box presentation has changed to close to instant and computer
literacy is often knowing where the "ON" button is -- so go ahead and keep
laughing.

In Bookmarks.html I ran into that "DO NOT EDIT" banner back in Netscape 3.0,
and said "yea, right..."   The change I wished to make was what i call a
binary choice: it works or it doesn't work.  (It did)

Specifically to "about:config" many valid options in there (mixed in with
the obsolete ones) are NOT on any menu choices or exist only as default
choices and must be added as "NEW".


FACE
0
FACE
3/14/2005 4:00:33 AM
FACE wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:32:34 -0500, Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>I'm willing to listen to arguments that about:config is 
>>better for average users than clicking through a series of menu choices. 
>> But I have a hunch I'll still be laughing.
> 
> 
> OK.  I note your term "average users".  That is pretty subjective.  How
> about people with 20 years experience of file manipulation including some
> system files? I suppose that group would be considered "average" to the
> machine language programmer who would view the GUI dependent as totally
> clueless -- but maybe not point that out or say so.
> 
> Seeing your last message in particular about how bookmarks.html is plain
> text in edit mode, i know that you realize that their is no magic
> here.....these are just files.  Remaining in a pure WYSIWYG environment does
> lead one to believe that somehow magic *is* involved and it must be done
> with smoke and mirrors.
> 
> Sometimes a direct edit is actually faster than dialog by dialog GUI
> approach.  It has changed greatly as CPUs have exponentially increased in
> power from the days when it was always faster.  Those that used win 3.1 on a
> 286 can attest to that.  But this is today, not a decade+ ago and speed of
> dialog box presentation has changed to close to instant and computer
> literacy is often knowing where the "ON" button is -- so go ahead and keep
> laughing.
> 
> In Bookmarks.html I ran into that "DO NOT EDIT" banner back in Netscape 3.0,
> and said "yea, right..."   The change I wished to make was what i call a
> binary choice: it works or it doesn't work.  (It did)
> 
> Specifically to "about:config" many valid options in there (mixed in with
> the obsolete ones) are NOT on any menu choices or exist only as default
> choices and must be added as "NEW".
> 
> 
> FACE

Well, golly.  Since you removed my comment you quoted from all context 
in which it was offered, I am left with ... uh ... ok!  ;-)

Honestly, I have no argument with anything at all you said ... IF we are 
talking about "... people with 20 years experience ..."  I doubt anyone 
would seriously consider that to equate with "average user" in today's 
mass-market PC population.  And that's what I was talking about and 
that's what Firefox and Thunderbird are purportedly targeted at.  Hence 
my contention that telling those users to either start diddling around 
with about:config or editing a config file is totally contrary to the 
stated (or at least strongly implied) program design goals.

We're talking about people going to WalMart and buying a $300 Linux 
computer system.  Or people calling Dell and spending $3000 on a really 
hot multimedia PC.  Either way, socio-economic considerations aside, 
while they might have 20 years of experience driving a truck, doing 
brain surgery, preparing taxes, managing a law office, selling rugs, 
etc., they do NOT have 20 years experience with PCs.  These are 
"average" users today.

-- 
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/moz.html
http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/seamonk.html
0
Ed
3/14/2005 4:32:12 AM
Ed Mullen wrote:
> FACE wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:32:34 -0500, Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'm willing to listen to arguments that about:config is better for 
>>> average users than clicking through a series of menu choices. But I 
>>> have a hunch I'll still be laughing.
>>
>>
>>
>> OK.  I note your term "average users".  That is pretty subjective.  How
>> about people with 20 years experience of file manipulation including some
>> system files? I suppose that group would be considered "average" to the
>> machine language programmer who would view the GUI dependent as totally
>> clueless -- but maybe not point that out or say so.
>>
>> Seeing your last message in particular about how bookmarks.html is plain
>> text in edit mode, i know that you realize that their is no magic
>> here.....these are just files.  Remaining in a pure WYSIWYG 
>> environment does
>> lead one to believe that somehow magic *is* involved and it must be done
>> with smoke and mirrors.
>>
>> Sometimes a direct edit is actually faster than dialog by dialog GUI
>> approach.  It has changed greatly as CPUs have exponentially increased in
>> power from the days when it was always faster.  Those that used win 
>> 3.1 on a
>> 286 can attest to that.  But this is today, not a decade+ ago and 
>> speed of
>> dialog box presentation has changed to close to instant and computer
>> literacy is often knowing where the "ON" button is -- so go ahead and 
>> keep
>> laughing.
>>
>> In Bookmarks.html I ran into that "DO NOT EDIT" banner back in 
>> Netscape 3.0,
>> and said "yea, right..."   The change I wished to make was what i call a
>> binary choice: it works or it doesn't work.  (It did)
>>
>> Specifically to "about:config" many valid options in there (mixed in with
>> the obsolete ones) are NOT on any menu choices or exist only as default
>> choices and must be added as "NEW".
>>
>>
>> FACE
> 
> 
> Well, golly.  Since you removed my comment you quoted from all context 
> in which it was offered, I am left with ... uh ... ok!  ;-)
> 
> Honestly, I have no argument with anything at all you said ... IF we are 
> talking about "... people with 20 years experience ..."  I doubt anyone 
> would seriously consider that to equate with "average user" in today's 
> mass-market PC population.  And that's what I was talking about and 
> that's what Firefox and Thunderbird are purportedly targeted at.  Hence 
> my contention that telling those users to either start diddling around 
> with about:config or editing a config file is totally contrary to the 
> stated (or at least strongly implied) program design goals.
> 
> We're talking about people going to WalMart and buying a $300 Linux 
> computer system.  Or people calling Dell and spending $3000 on a really 
> hot multimedia PC.  Either way, socio-economic considerations aside, 
> while they might have 20 years of experience driving a truck, doing 
> brain surgery, preparing taxes, managing a law office, selling rugs, 
> etc., they do NOT have 20 years experience with PCs.  These are 
> "average" users today.
> 

While I agree with your general point, here we disagree.  The 'average' 
FF user, like the 'average' IE user never changes ANYTHING from the 
default, and doesn't WANT to.  GUI or editing files isn't a factor.
0
Ron
3/14/2005 6:27:36 AM
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:27:36 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>Ed Mullen wrote:
>> FACE wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:32:34 -0500, Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm willing to listen to arguments that about:config is better for 
>>>> average users than clicking through a series of menu choices. But I 
>>>> have a hunch I'll still be laughing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> OK.  I note your term "average users".  That is pretty subjective.  How
>>> about people with 20 years experience of file manipulation including some
>>> system files? I suppose that group would be considered "average" to the
>>> machine language programmer who would view the GUI dependent as totally
>>> clueless -- but maybe not point that out or say so.
>>>
>>> Seeing your last message in particular about how bookmarks.html is plain
>>> text in edit mode, i know that you realize that their is no magic
>>> here.....these are just files.  Remaining in a pure WYSIWYG 
>>> environment does
>>> lead one to believe that somehow magic *is* involved and it must be done
>>> with smoke and mirrors.
>>>
>>> Sometimes a direct edit is actually faster than dialog by dialog GUI
>>> approach.  It has changed greatly as CPUs have exponentially increased in
>>> power from the days when it was always faster.  Those that used win 
>>> 3.1 on a
>>> 286 can attest to that.  But this is today, not a decade+ ago and 
>>> speed of
>>> dialog box presentation has changed to close to instant and computer
>>> literacy is often knowing where the "ON" button is -- so go ahead and 
>>> keep
>>> laughing.
>>>
>>> In Bookmarks.html I ran into that "DO NOT EDIT" banner back in 
>>> Netscape 3.0,
>>> and said "yea, right..."   The change I wished to make was what i call a
>>> binary choice: it works or it doesn't work.  (It did)
>>>
>>> Specifically to "about:config" many valid options in there (mixed in with
>>> the obsolete ones) are NOT on any menu choices or exist only as default
>>> choices and must be added as "NEW".
>>>
>>>
>>> FACE
>> 
>> 
>> Well, golly.  Since you removed my comment you quoted from all context 
>> in which it was offered, I am left with ... uh ... ok!  ;-)
>> 
>> Honestly, I have no argument with anything at all you said ... IF we are 
>> talking about "... people with 20 years experience ..."  I doubt anyone 
>> would seriously consider that to equate with "average user" in today's 
>> mass-market PC population.  And that's what I was talking about and 
>> that's what Firefox and Thunderbird are purportedly targeted at.  Hence 
>> my contention that telling those users to either start diddling around 
>> with about:config or editing a config file is totally contrary to the 
>> stated (or at least strongly implied) program design goals.
>> 
>> We're talking about people going to WalMart and buying a $300 Linux 
>> computer system.  Or people calling Dell and spending $3000 on a really 
>> hot multimedia PC.  Either way, socio-economic considerations aside, 
>> while they might have 20 years of experience driving a truck, doing 
>> brain surgery, preparing taxes, managing a law office, selling rugs, 
>> etc., they do NOT have 20 years experience with PCs.  These are 
>> "average" users today.
>> 
>
>While I agree with your general point, here we disagree.  The 'average' 
>FF user, like the 'average' IE user never changes ANYTHING from the 
>default, and doesn't WANT to.  GUI or editing files isn't a factor.

So the direction for FF is to make it not a web browsing application,
but rather a web browsing appliance?
0
John
3/14/2005 3:23:01 PM
On 14.03.2005 09:23, John A. wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:27:36 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> wrote:
> 
>>Ed Mullen wrote:
>>> FACE wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:32:34 -0500, Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I'm willing to listen to arguments that about:config is better for 
>>>>> average users than clicking through a series of menu choices. But I 
>>>>> have a hunch I'll still be laughing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK.  I note your term "average users".  That is pretty subjective.  How
>>>> about people with 20 years experience of file manipulation including some
>>>> system files? I suppose that group would be considered "average" to the
>>>> machine language programmer who would view the GUI dependent as totally
>>>> clueless -- but maybe not point that out or say so.
>>>>
>>>> Seeing your last message in particular about how bookmarks.html is plain
>>>> text in edit mode, i know that you realize that their is no magic
>>>> here.....these are just files.  Remaining in a pure WYSIWYG 
>>>> environment does
>>>> lead one to believe that somehow magic *is* involved and it must be done
>>>> with smoke and mirrors.
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes a direct edit is actually faster than dialog by dialog GUI
>>>> approach.  It has changed greatly as CPUs have exponentially increased in
>>>> power from the days when it was always faster.  Those that used win 
>>>> 3.1 on a
>>>> 286 can attest to that.  But this is today, not a decade+ ago and 
>>>> speed of
>>>> dialog box presentation has changed to close to instant and computer
>>>> literacy is often knowing where the "ON" button is -- so go ahead and 
>>>> keep
>>>> laughing.
>>>>
>>>> In Bookmarks.html I ran into that "DO NOT EDIT" banner back in 
>>>> Netscape 3.0,
>>>> and said "yea, right..."   The change I wished to make was what i call a
>>>> binary choice: it works or it doesn't work.  (It did)
>>>>
>>>> Specifically to "about:config" many valid options in there (mixed in with
>>>> the obsolete ones) are NOT on any menu choices or exist only as default
>>>> choices and must be added as "NEW".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> FACE
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Well, golly.  Since you removed my comment you quoted from all context 
>>> in which it was offered, I am left with ... uh ... ok!  ;-)
>>> 
>>> Honestly, I have no argument with anything at all you said ... IF we are 
>>> talking about "... people with 20 years experience ..."  I doubt anyone 
>>> would seriously consider that to equate with "average user" in today's 
>>> mass-market PC population.  And that's what I was talking about and 
>>> that's what Firefox and Thunderbird are purportedly targeted at.  Hence 
>>> my contention that telling those users to either start diddling around 
>>> with about:config or editing a config file is totally contrary to the 
>>> stated (or at least strongly implied) program design goals.
>>> 
>>> We're talking about people going to WalMart and buying a $300 Linux 
>>> computer system.  Or people calling Dell and spending $3000 on a really 
>>> hot multimedia PC.  Either way, socio-economic considerations aside, 
>>> while they might have 20 years of experience driving a truck, doing 
>>> brain surgery, preparing taxes, managing a law office, selling rugs, 
>>> etc., they do NOT have 20 years experience with PCs.  These are 
>>> "average" users today.
>>> 
>>
>>While I agree with your general point, here we disagree.  The 'average' 
>>FF user, like the 'average' IE user never changes ANYTHING from the 
>>default, and doesn't WANT to.  GUI or editing files isn't a factor.
> 
> So the direction for FF is to make it not a web browsing application,
> but rather a web browsing appliance?

Huh?

An "appliance" is a piece of equipment designed for a particular use. FF
is not an appliance but rather an application that can be used on an
"appliance".


-- 
Jay Garcia Netscape Champion - Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
Posting Guidelines - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org/guidelines.html
0
Jay
3/14/2005 3:56:50 PM
John A. wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:27:36 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Ed Mullen wrote:
>>
>>>FACE wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:32:34 -0500, Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I'm willing to listen to arguments that about:config is better for 
>>>>>average users than clicking through a series of menu choices. But I 
>>>>>have a hunch I'll still be laughing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>OK.  I note your term "average users".  That is pretty subjective.  How
>>>>about people with 20 years experience of file manipulation including some
>>>>system files? I suppose that group would be considered "average" to the
>>>>machine language programmer who would view the GUI dependent as totally
>>>>clueless -- but maybe not point that out or say so.
>>>>
>>>>Seeing your last message in particular about how bookmarks.html is plain
>>>>text in edit mode, i know that you realize that their is no magic
>>>>here.....these are just files.  Remaining in a pure WYSIWYG 
>>>>environment does
>>>>lead one to believe that somehow magic *is* involved and it must be done
>>>>with smoke and mirrors.
>>>>
>>>>Sometimes a direct edit is actually faster than dialog by dialog GUI
>>>>approach.  It has changed greatly as CPUs have exponentially increased in
>>>>power from the days when it was always faster.  Those that used win 
>>>>3.1 on a
>>>>286 can attest to that.  But this is today, not a decade+ ago and 
>>>>speed of
>>>>dialog box presentation has changed to close to instant and computer
>>>>literacy is often knowing where the "ON" button is -- so go ahead and 
>>>>keep
>>>>laughing.
>>>>
>>>>In Bookmarks.html I ran into that "DO NOT EDIT" banner back in 
>>>>Netscape 3.0,
>>>>and said "yea, right..."   The change I wished to make was what i call a
>>>>binary choice: it works or it doesn't work.  (It did)
>>>>
>>>>Specifically to "about:config" many valid options in there (mixed in with
>>>>the obsolete ones) are NOT on any menu choices or exist only as default
>>>>choices and must be added as "NEW".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>FACE
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, golly.  Since you removed my comment you quoted from all context 
>>>in which it was offered, I am left with ... uh ... ok!  ;-)
>>>
>>>Honestly, I have no argument with anything at all you said ... IF we are 
>>>talking about "... people with 20 years experience ..."  I doubt anyone 
>>>would seriously consider that to equate with "average user" in today's 
>>>mass-market PC population.  And that's what I was talking about and 
>>>that's what Firefox and Thunderbird are purportedly targeted at.  Hence 
>>>my contention that telling those users to either start diddling around 
>>>with about:config or editing a config file is totally contrary to the 
>>>stated (or at least strongly implied) program design goals.
>>>
>>>We're talking about people going to WalMart and buying a $300 Linux 
>>>computer system.  Or people calling Dell and spending $3000 on a really 
>>>hot multimedia PC.  Either way, socio-economic considerations aside, 
>>>while they might have 20 years of experience driving a truck, doing 
>>>brain surgery, preparing taxes, managing a law office, selling rugs, 
>>>etc., they do NOT have 20 years experience with PCs.  These are 
>>>"average" users today.
>>>
>>
>>While I agree with your general point, here we disagree.  The 'average' 
>>FF user, like the 'average' IE user never changes ANYTHING from the 
>>default, and doesn't WANT to.  GUI or editing files isn't a factor.
> 
> 
> So the direction for FF is to make it not a web browsing application,
> but rather a web browsing appliance?

Yes, IF you want to cater to the AVERAGE browser user.  Personally, I 
have no objection to using about:config to change settings.  Then we 
could cut out most of the UI for settings.  AVERAGE users would be quite 
happy.
0
Ron
3/14/2005 7:27:53 PM
Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 14.03.2005 09:23, John A. wrote:
> 
>  --- Original Message ---
> 
> 
>>On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:27:36 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ed Mullen wrote:
>>>
>>>>FACE wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:32:34 -0500, Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm willing to listen to arguments that about:config is better for 
>>>>>>average users than clicking through a series of menu choices. But I 
>>>>>>have a hunch I'll still be laughing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>OK.  I note your term "average users".  That is pretty subjective.  How
>>>>>about people with 20 years experience of file manipulation including some
>>>>>system files? I suppose that group would be considered "average" to the
>>>>>machine language programmer who would view the GUI dependent as totally
>>>>>clueless -- but maybe not point that out or say so.
>>>>>
>>>>>Seeing your last message in particular about how bookmarks.html is plain
>>>>>text in edit mode, i know that you realize that their is no magic
>>>>>here.....these are just files.  Remaining in a pure WYSIWYG 
>>>>>environment does
>>>>>lead one to believe that somehow magic *is* involved and it must be done
>>>>>with smoke and mirrors.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sometimes a direct edit is actually faster than dialog by dialog GUI
>>>>>approach.  It has changed greatly as CPUs have exponentially increased in
>>>>>power from the days when it was always faster.  Those that used win 
>>>>>3.1 on a
>>>>>286 can attest to that.  But this is today, not a decade+ ago and 
>>>>>speed of
>>>>>dialog box presentation has changed to close to instant and computer
>>>>>literacy is often knowing where the "ON" button is -- so go ahead and 
>>>>>keep
>>>>>laughing.
>>>>>
>>>>>In Bookmarks.html I ran into that "DO NOT EDIT" banner back in 
>>>>>Netscape 3.0,
>>>>>and said "yea, right..."   The change I wished to make was what i call a
>>>>>binary choice: it works or it doesn't work.  (It did)
>>>>>
>>>>>Specifically to "about:config" many valid options in there (mixed in with
>>>>>the obsolete ones) are NOT on any menu choices or exist only as default
>>>>>choices and must be added as "NEW".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>FACE
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, golly.  Since you removed my comment you quoted from all context 
>>>>in which it was offered, I am left with ... uh ... ok!  ;-)
>>>>
>>>>Honestly, I have no argument with anything at all you said ... IF we are 
>>>>talking about "... people with 20 years experience ..."  I doubt anyone 
>>>>would seriously consider that to equate with "average user" in today's 
>>>>mass-market PC population.  And that's what I was talking about and 
>>>>that's what Firefox and Thunderbird are purportedly targeted at.  Hence 
>>>>my contention that telling those users to either start diddling around 
>>>>with about:config or editing a config file is totally contrary to the 
>>>>stated (or at least strongly implied) program design goals.
>>>>
>>>>We're talking about people going to WalMart and buying a $300 Linux 
>>>>computer system.  Or people calling Dell and spending $3000 on a really 
>>>>hot multimedia PC.  Either way, socio-economic considerations aside, 
>>>>while they might have 20 years of experience driving a truck, doing 
>>>>brain surgery, preparing taxes, managing a law office, selling rugs, 
>>>>etc., they do NOT have 20 years experience with PCs.  These are 
>>>>"average" users today.
>>>>
>>>
>>>While I agree with your general point, here we disagree.  The 'average' 
>>>FF user, like the 'average' IE user never changes ANYTHING from the 
>>>default, and doesn't WANT to.  GUI or editing files isn't a factor.
>>
>>So the direction for FF is to make it not a web browsing application,
>>but rather a web browsing appliance?
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> An "appliance" is a piece of equipment designed for a particular use. FF
> is not an appliance but rather an application that can be used on an
> "appliance".
> 
> 
Are you saying computers have reached the 'appliance' stage?  I disagree.
0
Ron
3/14/2005 7:28:42 PM
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:27:36 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

>Ed Mullen wrote:
>> FACE wrote:
>>  
>>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:32:34 -0500, Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:
>>>  
>>>
>>>> I'm willing to listen to arguments that about:config is better for 
>>>> average users than clicking through a series of menu choices. But I 
>>>> have a hunch I'll still be laughing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> OK.  I note your term "average users".  That is pretty subjective.  How
>>> about people with 20 years experience of file manipulation including some
>>> system files? I suppose that group would be considered "average" to the
>>> machine language programmer who would view the GUI dependent as totally
>>> clueless -- but maybe not point that out or say so.
>>>
>>> Seeing your last message in particular about how bookmarks.html is plain
>>> text in edit mode, i know that you realize that their is no magic
>>> here.....these are just files.  Remaining in a pure WYSIWYG 
>>> environment does
>>> lead one to believe that somehow magic *is* involved and it must be done
>>> with smoke and mirrors.
>>>
>>> Sometimes a direct edit is actually faster than dialog by dialog GUI
>>> approach.  It has changed greatly as CPUs have exponentially increased in
>>> power from the days when it was always faster.  Those that used win 
>>> 3.1 on a
>>> 286 can attest to that.  But this is today, not a decade+ ago and 
>>> speed of
>>> dialog box presentation has changed to close to instant and computer
>>> literacy is often knowing where the "ON" button is -- so go ahead and 
>>> keep
>>> laughing.
>>>
>>> In Bookmarks.html I ran into that "DO NOT EDIT" banner back in 
>>> Netscape 3.0,
>>> and said "yea, right..."   The change I wished to make was what i call a
>>> binary choice: it works or it doesn't work.  (It did)
>>>
>>> Specifically to "about:config" many valid options in there (mixed in with
>>> the obsolete ones) are NOT on any menu choices or exist only as default
>>> choices and must be added as "NEW".
>>>
>>>
>>> FACE
>> 
>> 
>> Well, golly.  Since you removed my comment you quoted from all context 
>> in which it was offered, I am left with ... uh ... ok!  ;-)
>> 
>> Honestly, I have no argument with anything at all you said ... IF we are 
>> talking about "... people with 20 years experience ..."  I doubt anyone 
>> would seriously consider that to equate with "average user" in today's 
>> mass-market PC population.  And that's what I was talking about and 
>> that's what Firefox and Thunderbird are purportedly targeted at.  Hence 
>> my contention that telling those users to either start diddling around 
>> with about:config or editing a config file is totally contrary to the 
>> stated (or at least strongly implied) program design goals.
>> 
>> We're talking about people going to WalMart and buying a $300 Linux 
>> computer system.  Or people calling Dell and spending $3000 on a really 
>> hot multimedia PC.  Either way, socio-economic considerations aside, 
>> while they might have 20 years of experience driving a truck, doing 
>> brain surgery, preparing taxes, managing a law office, selling rugs, 
>> etc., they do NOT have 20 years experience with PCs.  These are 
>> "average" users today.
>> 
>
>While I agree with your general point, here we disagree.  The 'average' 
>FF user, like the 'average' IE user never changes ANYTHING from the 
>default, and doesn't WANT to.  GUI or editing files isn't a factor.


I don't disagree on the whole that most people never go further than the
"out of the box" defaults.  However, to some degree i do disagree insofar as
"doesn't WANT to ".  In general -- certainly not all -- the level of
questions asked here belies the "average user's" wants and capabilities.
I do not say that to put anybody down, but in explanation.

An example is the recent thread about exporting bookmarks.  The ping-pong of
usenet messages has taken the poster more time and energy than just doing it
and accepting the binary outcome.  Experience only comes from doing and
mistakes are not only the kernel of learning but the result of doing.  You
may have noticed that he who does nothing makes no mistakes.    I guess that
sounds to rough, and i know from experience the paralyzing fear that can
grip people when they are in unfamiliar territory, so to put in words that I
can only hope will be taken in the spirit meant, it is the fear of doing
something that prevents learning.

To Ed: not about FF or TB, but the last change I made to Netscape email was
to userchrome.css per
http://ilias.ca/netscape/mailnewsfaq/#BackgroundColours .
That one sure was not in the GUI (or UI, if you prefer).
You are correct that I excerpted a single line or two from your original
post but it happens to be my favorite subject. <G>

FACE
0
FACE
3/14/2005 8:31:34 PM
Ron Hunter wrote:

> John A. wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:27:36 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Ed Mullen wrote:
>>>
>>>> FACE wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:32:34 -0500, Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm willing to listen to arguments that about:config is better for 
>>>>>> average users than clicking through a series of menu choices. But 
>>>>>> I have a hunch I'll still be laughing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK.  I note your term "average users".  That is pretty subjective.  
>>>>> How
>>>>> about people with 20 years experience of file manipulation 
>>>>> including some
>>>>> system files? I suppose that group would be considered "average" to 
>>>>> the
>>>>> machine language programmer who would view the GUI dependent as 
>>>>> totally
>>>>> clueless -- but maybe not point that out or say so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seeing your last message in particular about how bookmarks.html is 
>>>>> plain
>>>>> text in edit mode, i know that you realize that their is no magic
>>>>> here.....these are just files.  Remaining in a pure WYSIWYG 
>>>>> environment does
>>>>> lead one to believe that somehow magic *is* involved and it must be 
>>>>> done
>>>>> with smoke and mirrors.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sometimes a direct edit is actually faster than dialog by dialog GUI
>>>>> approach.  It has changed greatly as CPUs have exponentially 
>>>>> increased in
>>>>> power from the days when it was always faster.  Those that used win 
>>>>> 3.1 on a
>>>>> 286 can attest to that.  But this is today, not a decade+ ago and 
>>>>> speed of
>>>>> dialog box presentation has changed to close to instant and computer
>>>>> literacy is often knowing where the "ON" button is -- so go ahead 
>>>>> and keep
>>>>> laughing.
>>>>>
>>>>> In Bookmarks.html I ran into that "DO NOT EDIT" banner back in 
>>>>> Netscape 3.0,
>>>>> and said "yea, right..."   The change I wished to make was what i 
>>>>> call a
>>>>> binary choice: it works or it doesn't work.  (It did)
>>>>>
>>>>> Specifically to "about:config" many valid options in there (mixed 
>>>>> in with
>>>>> the obsolete ones) are NOT on any menu choices or exist only as 
>>>>> default
>>>>> choices and must be added as "NEW".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> FACE
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, golly.  Since you removed my comment you quoted from all 
>>>> context in which it was offered, I am left with ... uh ... ok!  ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Honestly, I have no argument with anything at all you said ... IF we 
>>>> are talking about "... people with 20 years experience ..."  I doubt 
>>>> anyone would seriously consider that to equate with "average user" 
>>>> in today's mass-market PC population.  And that's what I was talking 
>>>> about and that's what Firefox and Thunderbird are purportedly 
>>>> targeted at.  Hence my contention that telling those users to either 
>>>> start diddling around with about:config or editing a config file is 
>>>> totally contrary to the stated (or at least strongly implied) 
>>>> program design goals.
>>>>
>>>> We're talking about people going to WalMart and buying a $300 Linux 
>>>> computer system.  Or people calling Dell and spending $3000 on a 
>>>> really hot multimedia PC.  Either way, socio-economic considerations 
>>>> aside, while they might have 20 years of experience driving a truck, 
>>>> doing brain surgery, preparing taxes, managing a law office, selling 
>>>> rugs, etc., they do NOT have 20 years experience with PCs.  These 
>>>> are "average" users today.
>>>>
>>>
>>> While I agree with your general point, here we disagree.  The 
>>> 'average' FF user, like the 'average' IE user never changes ANYTHING 
>>> from the default, and doesn't WANT to.  GUI or editing files isn't a 
>>> factor.
>>
>>
>>
>> So the direction for FF is to make it not a web browsing application,
>> but rather a web browsing appliance?
> 
> 
> Yes, IF you want to cater to the AVERAGE browser user.  Personally, I 
> have no objection to using about:config to change settings.  Then we 
> could cut out most of the UI for settings.  AVERAGE users would be quite 
> happy.

Interesting opinion.  I suspect that most users would, given a choice, 
prefer a menu structure since it mirrors the defacto approach used in 
Windows and most Windows programs.  Things are easier when they are 
familiar.

-- 
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/moz.html
http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/seamonk.html
0
Ed
3/14/2005 9:31:07 PM
FACE wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:27:36 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Ed Mullen wrote:
>>
>>>FACE wrote:
>>> 
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:32:34 -0500, Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I'm willing to listen to arguments that about:config is better for 
>>>>>average users than clicking through a series of menu choices. But I 
>>>>>have a hunch I'll still be laughing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>OK.  I note your term "average users".  That is pretty subjective.  How
>>>>about people with 20 years experience of file manipulation including some
>>>>system files? I suppose that group would be considered "average" to the
>>>>machine language programmer who would view the GUI dependent as totally
>>>>clueless -- but maybe not point that out or say so.
>>>>
>>>>Seeing your last message in particular about how bookmarks.html is plain
>>>>text in edit mode, i know that you realize that their is no magic
>>>>here.....these are just files.  Remaining in a pure WYSIWYG 
>>>>environment does
>>>>lead one to believe that somehow magic *is* involved and it must be done
>>>>with smoke and mirrors.
>>>>
>>>>Sometimes a direct edit is actually faster than dialog by dialog GUI
>>>>approach.  It has changed greatly as CPUs have exponentially increased in
>>>>power from the days when it was always faster.  Those that used win 
>>>>3.1 on a
>>>>286 can attest to that.  But this is today, not a decade+ ago and 
>>>>speed of
>>>>dialog box presentation has changed to close to instant and computer
>>>>literacy is often knowing where the "ON" button is -- so go ahead and 
>>>>keep
>>>>laughing.
>>>>
>>>>In Bookmarks.html I ran into that "DO NOT EDIT" banner back in 
>>>>Netscape 3.0,
>>>>and said "yea, right..."   The change I wished to make was what i call a
>>>>binary choice: it works or it doesn't work.  (It did)
>>>>
>>>>Specifically to "about:config" many valid options in there (mixed in with
>>>>the obsolete ones) are NOT on any menu choices or exist only as default
>>>>choices and must be added as "NEW".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>FACE
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, golly.  Since you removed my comment you quoted from all context 
>>>in which it was offered, I am left with ... uh ... ok!  ;-)
>>>
>>>Honestly, I have no argument with anything at all you said ... IF we are 
>>>talking about "... people with 20 years experience ..."  I doubt anyone 
>>>would seriously consider that to equate with "average user" in today's 
>>>mass-market PC population.  And that's what I was talking about and 
>>>that's what Firefox and Thunderbird are purportedly targeted at.  Hence 
>>>my contention that telling those users to either start diddling around 
>>>with about:config or editing a config file is totally contrary to the 
>>>stated (or at least strongly implied) program design goals.
>>>
>>>We're talking about people going to WalMart and buying a $300 Linux 
>>>computer system.  Or people calling Dell and spending $3000 on a really 
>>>hot multimedia PC.  Either way, socio-economic considerations aside, 
>>>while they might have 20 years of experience driving a truck, doing 
>>>brain surgery, preparing taxes, managing a law office, selling rugs, 
>>>etc., they do NOT have 20 years experience with PCs.  These are 
>>>"average" users today.
>>>
>>
>>While I agree with your general point, here we disagree.  The 'average' 
>>FF user, like the 'average' IE user never changes ANYTHING from the 
>>default, and doesn't WANT to.  GUI or editing files isn't a factor.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree on the whole that most people never go further than the
> "out of the box" defaults.  However, to some degree i do disagree insofar as
> "doesn't WANT to ".  In general -- certainly not all -- the level of
> questions asked here belies the "average user's" wants and capabilities.
> I do not say that to put anybody down, but in explanation.
> 
> An example is the recent thread about exporting bookmarks.  The ping-pong of
> usenet messages has taken the poster more time and energy than just doing it
> and accepting the binary outcome.  Experience only comes from doing and
> mistakes are not only the kernel of learning but the result of doing.  You
> may have noticed that he who does nothing makes no mistakes.    I guess that
> sounds to rough, and i know from experience the paralyzing fear that can
> grip people when they are in unfamiliar territory, so to put in words that I
> can only hope will be taken in the spirit meant, it is the fear of doing
> something that prevents learning.
> 
> To Ed: not about FF or TB, but the last change I made to Netscape email was
> to userchrome.css per
> http://ilias.ca/netscape/mailnewsfaq/#BackgroundColours .
> That one sure was not in the GUI (or UI, if you prefer).
> You are correct that I excerpted a single line or two from your original
> post but it happens to be my favorite subject. <G>
> 
> FACE

I hope I'm not being misunderstood here.  I am NOT advocating putting 
/everything/ into the preferences UI.  Nor am I advocating taking away 
about:config.  The combination of the two is, to me, a decided advantage 
of the Suite over FF/TB.

And the ability to customize via CSS is also a great thing, if a user 
should want to learn enough to do that.

-- 
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/moz.html
http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/seamonk.html
0
Ed
3/14/2005 9:36:59 PM
On 14.03.2005 13:28, Ron Hunter wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

>> An "appliance" is a piece of equipment designed for a particular use. FF
>> is not an appliance but rather an application that can be used on an
>> "appliance".
>> 
>> 
> Are you saying computers have reached the 'appliance' stage?  I disagree.

Computers are appliances by definition. Maybe you're thinking of a
refrigerator! :-)

-- 
Jay Garcia Netscape Champion - Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
Posting Guidelines - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org/guidelines.html
0
Jay
3/14/2005 9:40:01 PM
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:36:59 -0500, Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:

<Giant snip to get to the c:\ of the matter>

>I hope I'm not being misunderstood here.  I am NOT advocating putting 
>/everything/ into the preferences UI.  Nor am I advocating taking away 
>about:config.  The combination of the two is, to me, a decided advantage 
>of the Suite over FF/TB.
>
>And the ability to customize via CSS is also a great thing, if a user 
>should want to learn enough to do that.
>
>-- 
>Ed Mullen
>http://edmullen.net
>http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/moz.html
>http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/seamonk.html

You are not misunderstood at all.  (Not even misunderestimated!)

I understand the thrust of your original post and understand what you meant.
I was pointing out that there are those times when the more obscure options
may need to be implemented. (Everything can not be put in the interface
settings.)

Cheers and all,

FACE
0
FACE
3/14/2005 10:11:19 PM
FACE wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:36:59 -0500, Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:
> 
> <Giant snip to get to the c:\ of the matter>
> 
>>I hope I'm not being misunderstood here.  I am NOT advocating putting 
>>/everything/ into the preferences UI.  Nor am I advocating taking away 
>>about:config.  The combination of the two is, to me, a decided advantage 
>>of the Suite over FF/TB.
>>
>>And the ability to customize via CSS is also a great thing, if a user 
>>should want to learn enough to do that.
>>
>>-- 
>>Ed Mullen
>>http://edmullen.net
>>http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/moz.html
>>http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/seamonk.html
> 
> 
> You are not misunderstood at all.  (Not even misunderestimated!)
> 
> I understand the thrust of your original post and understand what you meant.
> I was pointing out that there are those times when the more obscure options
> may need to be implemented. (Everything can not be put in the interface
> settings.)
> 
> Cheers and all,
> 
> FACE

Absolutely agree.  The nice thing that I've found with Mozilla is that 
it seems to fit best with the "average" users I support.  Once its basic 
setup is done most of them don't need to poke around the settings (my 
wife falls into this category; she just yells at me to fix/change 
something and doesn't want to know anything about it).

The next level of user will get curious or want to change something and 
ask me how to find the setting (much like a lot of questions on the 
newsgroups).  Once they've discovered that it's no more mysterious than 
the Windows apps they're used to, they'll get to investigating on their own.

A very few of them will reach a point where they start browsing my site 
and the other links I provide there and start experimenting on their 
own.  Then they'll say something like:  "Hey! I'm getting almost as 
geeky as you are, Ed!" That's when I tell them: "Yup, you are now almost 
as /dangerous/ as I am!"  ;-)

-- 
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/moz.html
http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/seamonk.html
0
Ed
3/14/2005 11:05:50 PM
Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 14.03.2005 13:28, Ron Hunter wrote:
> 
>  --- Original Message ---
> 
> 
>>>An "appliance" is a piece of equipment designed for a particular use. FF
>>>is not an appliance but rather an application that can be used on an
>>>"appliance".
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Are you saying computers have reached the 'appliance' stage?  I disagree.
> 
> 
> Computers are appliances by definition. Maybe you're thinking of a
> refrigerator! :-)
> 

Your definition of 'appliance' obviously doesn't match mine.  I consider 
an 'appliance' to be something that is so commonly used that one need 
not read the manual to use it.  How many people do you know who have 
actually READ the manual for their refrigerator?
0
Ron
3/15/2005 1:14:52 AM
Ed Mullen wrote:
> FACE wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:27:36 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Ed Mullen wrote:
>>>
>>>> FACE wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:32:34 -0500, Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm willing to listen to arguments that about:config is better for 
>>>>>> average users than clicking through a series of menu choices. But 
>>>>>> I have a hunch I'll still be laughing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK.  I note your term "average users".  That is pretty subjective.  
>>>>> How
>>>>> about people with 20 years experience of file manipulation 
>>>>> including some
>>>>> system files? I suppose that group would be considered "average" to 
>>>>> the
>>>>> machine language programmer who would view the GUI dependent as 
>>>>> totally
>>>>> clueless -- but maybe not point that out or say so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seeing your last message in particular about how bookmarks.html is 
>>>>> plain
>>>>> text in edit mode, i know that you realize that their is no magic
>>>>> here.....these are just files.  Remaining in a pure WYSIWYG 
>>>>> environment does
>>>>> lead one to believe that somehow magic *is* involved and it must be 
>>>>> done
>>>>> with smoke and mirrors.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sometimes a direct edit is actually faster than dialog by dialog GUI
>>>>> approach.  It has changed greatly as CPUs have exponentially 
>>>>> increased in
>>>>> power from the days when it was always faster.  Those that used win 
>>>>> 3.1 on a
>>>>> 286 can attest to that.  But this is today, not a decade+ ago and 
>>>>> speed of
>>>>> dialog box presentation has changed to close to instant and computer
>>>>> literacy is often knowing where the "ON" button is -- so go ahead 
>>>>> and keep
>>>>> laughing.
>>>>>
>>>>> In Bookmarks.html I ran into that "DO NOT EDIT" banner back in 
>>>>> Netscape 3.0,
>>>>> and said "yea, right..."   The change I wished to make was what i 
>>>>> call a
>>>>> binary choice: it works or it doesn't work.  (It did)
>>>>>
>>>>> Specifically to "about:config" many valid options in there (mixed 
>>>>> in with
>>>>> the obsolete ones) are NOT on any menu choices or exist only as 
>>>>> default
>>>>> choices and must be added as "NEW".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> FACE
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, golly.  Since you removed my comment you quoted from all 
>>>> context in which it was offered, I am left with ... uh ... ok!  ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Honestly, I have no argument with anything at all you said ... IF we 
>>>> are talking about "... people with 20 years experience ..."  I doubt 
>>>> anyone would seriously consider that to equate with "average user" 
>>>> in today's mass-market PC population.  And that's what I was talking 
>>>> about and that's what Firefox and Thunderbird are purportedly 
>>>> targeted at.  Hence my contention that telling those users to either 
>>>> start diddling around with about:config or editing a config file is 
>>>> totally contrary to the stated (or at least strongly implied) 
>>>> program design goals.
>>>>
>>>> We're talking about people going to WalMart and buying a $300 Linux 
>>>> computer system.  Or people calling Dell and spending $3000 on a 
>>>> really hot multimedia PC.  Either way, socio-economic considerations 
>>>> aside, while they might have 20 years of experience driving a truck, 
>>>> doing brain surgery, preparing taxes, managing a law office, selling 
>>>> rugs, etc., they do NOT have 20 years experience with PCs.  These 
>>>> are "average" users today.
>>>>
>>>
>>> While I agree with your general point, here we disagree.  The 
>>> 'average' FF user, like the 'average' IE user never changes ANYTHING 
>>> from the default, and doesn't WANT to.  GUI or editing files isn't a 
>>> factor.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't disagree on the whole that most people never go further than the
>> "out of the box" defaults.  However, to some degree i do disagree 
>> insofar as
>> "doesn't WANT to ".  In general -- certainly not all -- the level of
>> questions asked here belies the "average user's" wants and capabilities.
>> I do not say that to put anybody down, but in explanation.
>>
>> An example is the recent thread about exporting bookmarks.  The 
>> ping-pong of
>> usenet messages has taken the poster more time and energy than just 
>> doing it
>> and accepting the binary outcome.  Experience only comes from doing and
>> mistakes are not only the kernel of learning but the result of doing.  
>> You
>> may have noticed that he who does nothing makes no mistakes.    I 
>> guess that
>> sounds to rough, and i know from experience the paralyzing fear that can
>> grip people when they are in unfamiliar territory, so to put in words 
>> that I
>> can only hope will be taken in the spirit meant, it is the fear of doing
>> something that prevents learning.
>>
>> To Ed: not about FF or TB, but the last change I made to Netscape 
>> email was
>> to userchrome.css per
>> http://ilias.ca/netscape/mailnewsfaq/#BackgroundColours .
>> That one sure was not in the GUI (or UI, if you prefer).
>> You are correct that I excerpted a single line or two from your original
>> post but it happens to be my favorite subject. <G>
>>
>> FACE
> 
> 
> I hope I'm not being misunderstood here.  I am NOT advocating putting 
> /everything/ into the preferences UI.  Nor am I advocating taking away 
> about:config.  The combination of the two is, to me, a decided advantage 
> of the Suite over FF/TB.
> 
> And the ability to customize via CSS is also a great thing, if a user 
> should want to learn enough to do that.
> 
I would guess that no more than 1% of users would want to deal with 
about:config, and that not many more would ever traverse the entire 
options dialog tree.  I have found only a very small number of IE users 
who have ever looked at the 'Internet Options' dialog.  Many don't even 
know what 'Windows Explorer' is, or that it and Internet Explorer  are 
really the same application.  And, they don't WANT to know.  My older 
brother is a good example of this type of thinking.
0
Ron
3/15/2005 1:18:37 AM
Ed Mullen wrote:
> FACE wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:36:59 -0500, Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:
>>
>> <Giant snip to get to the c:\ of the matter>
>>
>>> I hope I'm not being misunderstood here.  I am NOT advocating putting 
>>> /everything/ into the preferences UI.  Nor am I advocating taking 
>>> away about:config.  The combination of the two is, to me, a decided 
>>> advantage of the Suite over FF/TB.
>>>
>>> And the ability to customize via CSS is also a great thing, if a user 
>>> should want to learn enough to do that.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Ed Mullen
>>> http://edmullen.net
>>> http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/moz.html
>>> http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/seamonk.html
>>
>>
>>
>> You are not misunderstood at all.  (Not even misunderestimated!)
>>
>> I understand the thrust of your original post and understand what you 
>> meant.
>> I was pointing out that there are those times when the more obscure 
>> options
>> may need to be implemented. (Everything can not be put in the interface
>> settings.)
>>
>> Cheers and all,
>>
>> FACE
> 
> 
> Absolutely agree.  The nice thing that I've found with Mozilla is that 
> it seems to fit best with the "average" users I support.  Once its basic 
> setup is done most of them don't need to poke around the settings (my 
> wife falls into this category; she just yells at me to fix/change 
> something and doesn't want to know anything about it).

Mine also.  That's why SHE used Mozilla Suite and I use FF/TB.

> 
> The next level of user will get curious or want to change something and 
> ask me how to find the setting (much like a lot of questions on the 
> newsgroups).  Once they've discovered that it's no more mysterious than 
> the Windows apps they're used to, they'll get to investigating on their 
> own.
>

Kinda dangerous there....


> A very few of them will reach a point where they start browsing my site 
> and the other links I provide there and start experimenting on their 
> own.  Then they'll say something like:  "Hey! I'm getting almost as 
> geeky as you are, Ed!" That's when I tell them: "Yup, you are now almost 
> as /dangerous/ as I am!"  ;-)
> 

Much more, they haven't your experience.

0
Ron
3/15/2005 1:20:43 AM
"DC" wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.general:
>Stan Brown wrote:
>> "DC" wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.general:
>>>Stan Brown wrote:
>>>> "alphadec" wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.general:
>>>>>http://www.mozilla.org/seamonkey-transition.html
>>>>>Think this must be the worst news the I have read from mozilla.org.
>
>>>> I'm disappointed -- the Firefox user interface is crud.
>
>>>Care to substantiate that, or are you just driving by?
>
>> What "substantiate"? I downloaded FF, tried it: most of the things 
>> I needed to set, which I could set though the UI in Mozilla, could 
>> not be set in FF without going to about:config.
>
>Could you try and be a bit more vacuous?  *sigh*

Could you try and be a bit more obtuse? *sigh*

Look at Moz Edit->Preferences and FF's corresponding menu, and then 
come back and tell me that FF lets the user change as much as Moz.

If you're honest about it, you'll admit _instantly_ that FF lets 
the user change far_ fewer things than Moz does, without going into 
about:config. And if you're not, then a pox on you.

-- 

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
                                  http://OakRoadSystems.com/
0
Stan
3/15/2005 2:50:38 AM
Stan Brown wrote:
> "DC" wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.general:
> 
>>Stan Brown wrote:
>>
>>>"DC" wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.general:
>>>
>>>>Stan Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"alphadec" wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.general:
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.mozilla.org/seamonkey-transition.html
>>>>>>Think this must be the worst news the I have read from mozilla.org.
>>
>>>>>I'm disappointed -- the Firefox user interface is crud.
>>
>>>>Care to substantiate that, or are you just driving by?
>>
>>>What "substantiate"? I downloaded FF, tried it: most of the things 
>>>I needed to set, which I could set though the UI in Mozilla, could 
>>>not be set in FF without going to about:config.
>>
>>Could you try and be a bit more vacuous?  *sigh*
> 
> 
> Could you try and be a bit more obtuse? *sigh*
> 
> Look at Moz Edit->Preferences and FF's corresponding menu, and then 
> come back and tell me that FF lets the user change as much as Moz.
> 
> If you're honest about it, you'll admit _instantly_ that FF lets 
> the user change far_ fewer things than Moz does, without going into 
> about:config. And if you're not, then a pox on you.
> 

That FF has an abbreviated preferences dialog is not at issue.  That 
this makes the program 'crap', certainly IS.  What you consider a fault, 
the designers seem to consider a desirable feature.
0
Ron
3/15/2005 3:25:41 AM
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:18:37 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

>Ed Mullen wrote:
>> FACE wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:27:36 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Ed Mullen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> FACE wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:32:34 -0500, Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm willing to listen to arguments that about:config is better for 
>>>>>>> average users than clicking through a series of menu choices. But 
>>>>>>> I have a hunch I'll still be laughing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK.  I note your term "average users".  That is pretty subjective.  
>>>>>> How
>>>>>> about people with 20 years experience of file manipulation 
>>>>>> including some
>>>>>> system files? I suppose that group would be considered "average" to 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> machine language programmer who would view the GUI dependent as 
>>>>>> totally
>>>>>> clueless -- but maybe not point that out or say so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seeing your last message in particular about how bookmarks.html is 
>>>>>> plain
>>>>>> text in edit mode, i know that you realize that their is no magic
>>>>>> here.....these are just files.  Remaining in a pure WYSIWYG 
>>>>>> environment does
>>>>>> lead one to believe that somehow magic *is* involved and it must be 
>>>>>> done
>>>>>> with smoke and mirrors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sometimes a direct edit is actually faster than dialog by dialog GUI
>>>>>> approach.  It has changed greatly as CPUs have exponentially 
>>>>>> increased in
>>>>>> power from the days when it was always faster.  Those that used win 
>>>>>> 3.1 on a
>>>>>> 286 can attest to that.  But this is today, not a decade+ ago and 
>>>>>> speed of
>>>>>> dialog box presentation has changed to close to instant and computer
>>>>>> literacy is often knowing where the "ON" button is -- so go ahead 
>>>>>> and keep
>>>>>> laughing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In Bookmarks.html I ran into that "DO NOT EDIT" banner back in 
>>>>>> Netscape 3.0,
>>>>>> and said "yea, right..."   The change I wished to make was what i 
>>>>>> call a
>>>>>> binary choice: it works or it doesn't work.  (It did)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Specifically to "about:config" many valid options in there (mixed 
>>>>>> in with
>>>>>> the obsolete ones) are NOT on any menu choices or exist only as 
>>>>>> default
>>>>>> choices and must be added as "NEW".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FACE
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, golly.  Since you removed my comment you quoted from all 
>>>>> context in which it was offered, I am left with ... uh ... ok!  ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Honestly, I have no argument with anything at all you said ... IF we 
>>>>> are talking about "... people with 20 years experience ..."  I doubt 
>>>>> anyone would seriously consider that to equate with "average user" 
>>>>> in today's mass-market PC population.  And that's what I was talking 
>>>>> about and that's what Firefox and Thunderbird are purportedly 
>>>>> targeted at.  Hence my contention that telling those users to either 
>>>>> start diddling around with about:config or editing a config file is 
>>>>> totally contrary to the stated (or at least strongly implied) 
>>>>> program design goals.
>>>>>
>>>>> We're talking about people going to WalMart and buying a $300 Linux 
>>>>> computer system.  Or people calling Dell and spending $3000 on a 
>>>>> really hot multimedia PC.  Either way, socio-economic considerations 
>>>>> aside, while they might have 20 years of experience driving a truck, 
>>>>> doing brain surgery, preparing taxes, managing a law office, selling 
>>>>> rugs, etc., they do NOT have 20 years experience with PCs.  These 
>>>>> are "average" users today.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> While I agree with your general point, here we disagree.  The 
>>>> 'average' FF user, like the 'average' IE user never changes ANYTHING 
>>>> from the default, and doesn't WANT to.  GUI or editing files isn't a 
>>>> factor.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't disagree on the whole that most people never go further than the
>>> "out of the box" defaults.  However, to some degree i do disagree 
>>> insofar as
>>> "doesn't WANT to ".  In general -- certainly not all -- the level of
>>> questions asked here belies the "average user's" wants and capabilities.
>>> I do not say that to put anybody down, but in explanation.
>>>
>>> An example is the recent thread about exporting bookmarks.  The 
>>> ping-pong of
>>> usenet messages has taken the poster more time and energy than just 
>>> doing it
>>> and accepting the binary outcome.  Experience only comes from doing and
>>> mistakes are not only the kernel of learning but the result of doing.  
>>> You
>>> may have noticed that he who does nothing makes no mistakes.    I 
>>> guess that
>>> sounds to rough, and i know from experience the paralyzing fear that can
>>> grip people when they are in unfamiliar territory, so to put in words 
>>> that I
>>> can only hope will be taken in the spirit meant, it is the fear of doing
>>> something that prevents learning.
>>>
>>> To Ed: not about FF or TB, but the last change I made to Netscape 
>>> email was
>>> to userchrome.css per
>>> http://ilias.ca/netscape/mailnewsfaq/#BackgroundColours .
>>> That one sure was not in the GUI (or UI, if you prefer).
>>> You are correct that I excerpted a single line or two from your original
>>> post but it happens to be my favorite subject. <G>
>>>
>>> FACE
>> 
>> 
>> I hope I'm not being misunderstood here.  I am NOT advocating putting 
>> /everything/ into the preferences UI.  Nor am I advocating taking away 
>> about:config.  The combination of the two is, to me, a decided advantage 
>> of the Suite over FF/TB.
>> 
>> And the ability to customize via CSS is also a great thing, if a user 
>> should want to learn enough to do that.
>> 
>I would guess that no more than 1% of users would want to deal with 
>about:config, and that not many more would ever traverse the entire 
>options dialog tree.  I have found only a very small number of IE users 
>who have ever looked at the 'Internet Options' dialog.  Many don't even 
>know what 'Windows Explorer' is, or that it and Internet Explorer  are 
>really the same application.  And, they don't WANT to know.  My older 
>brother is a good example of this type of thinking.

Ron, Ron, Ron..........

The difference *is* WANTing to know and i think we all 3 agree on that.

The WHY may be as simple as knowledge for the sake of knowledge.  It can
also be necessity (more like desire) which is why I ended up activating the
user addition to the CHROME style sheet.

The HOW comes from trying.  LEARNING comes from doing.

How many people do you know who have gained experience from doing nothing?

The following anecdote is for a point, not self-aggrandizement:
Twenty-seven years ago i was in a meeting and beforehand I picked up a trade
rag the cover of which was "The Black Art of Systems Programming".
I did not like the tone of the phrase or article.  Before many years passed
I WAS a Systems Programmer (may be a term out of use today).  The point of
that anecdote is that in a few words, i see you setting yourself into the
role of a "Black Art" practitioner, much like that magazine title.  Resist.

There is no magic.  There is neither smoke nor mirrors.  They are all, in
the end, flat files of code -- some compiled, some interpreted.....

But it is a system.  It has bloat files and it has key files.  Mess up a key
file and the whole house of cards for that application comes tumbling down.

What will happen?  Will your monitor blow out and into your face?  No.
Will the CPU suddenly surge and then cease?  No.
Will the platters of your harddrive come spinning through the computer case?
No.

You restore from backup or in the worst case scenario, reinstall.  

You lose important data?  Maybe.  You DID back it up first didn't you?

CAUTION prevents data loss.

All of this from WANTing to know.  How does the watch work.  Can I make it
run backwards?

Maybe it is just 1% who want to know.  Maybe it is 2% but half of them are
scared off by statements like "DO NOT EDIT".  You wouldn't say that would
you? You would explain that most likely the file contents were in RAM and
when the application closed that they would be written to disk, wouldn't
you?  For those that don't want to know, well, maybe that is their destiny.

This ain't brain surgery but i still have many questions.


FACE
0
FACE
3/15/2005 4:09:46 AM
"Ron Hunter" wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.general:
>>>>>Stan Brown wrote:
>>>>>>I'm disappointed -- the Firefox user interface is crud.

>That FF has an abbreviated preferences dialog is not at issue.  That 
>this makes the program 'crap', certainly IS.  What you consider a fault, 
>the designers seem to consider a desirable feature.

Since you seem towant to disagree with something I did not say, I 
thought it might be helpful to abstract the relevant part of what I 
_did_ say. I did not say the program is crud, let alone crap; I 
said the UI is crud. 

If you don't recognize "crud" as an expression of my opinion of the 
interface, I apologize.

-- 

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
                                  http://OakRoadSystems.com/
0
Stan
3/15/2005 4:58:31 AM
FACE wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:18:37 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Ed Mullen wrote:
>>
>>>FACE wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:27:36 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> 
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ed Mullen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>FACE wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:32:34 -0500, Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'm willing to listen to arguments that about:config is better for 
>>>>>>>>average users than clicking through a series of menu choices. But 
>>>>>>>>I have a hunch I'll still be laughing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>OK.  I note your term "average users".  That is pretty subjective.  
>>>>>>>How
>>>>>>>about people with 20 years experience of file manipulation 
>>>>>>>including some
>>>>>>>system files? I suppose that group would be considered "average" to 
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>machine language programmer who would view the GUI dependent as 
>>>>>>>totally
>>>>>>>clueless -- but maybe not point that out or say so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Seeing your last message in particular about how bookmarks.html is 
>>>>>>>plain
>>>>>>>text in edit mode, i know that you realize that their is no magic
>>>>>>>here.....these are just files.  Remaining in a pure WYSIWYG 
>>>>>>>environment does
>>>>>>>lead one to believe that somehow magic *is* involved and it must be 
>>>>>>>done
>>>>>>>with smoke and mirrors.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sometimes a direct edit is actually faster than dialog by dialog GUI
>>>>>>>approach.  It has changed greatly as CPUs have exponentially 
>>>>>>>increased in
>>>>>>>power from the days when it was always faster.  Those that used win 
>>>>>>>3.1 on a
>>>>>>>286 can attest to that.  But this is today, not a decade+ ago and 
>>>>>>>speed of
>>>>>>>dialog box presentation has changed to close to instant and computer
>>>>>>>literacy is often knowing where the "ON" button is -- so go ahead 
>>>>>>>and keep
>>>>>>>laughing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In Bookmarks.html I ran into that "DO NOT EDIT" banner back in 
>>>>>>>Netscape 3.0,
>>>>>>>and said "yea, right..."   The change I wished to make was what i 
>>>>>>>call a
>>>>>>>binary choice: it works or it doesn't work.  (It did)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Specifically to "about:config" many valid options in there (mixed 
>>>>>>>in with
>>>>>>>the obsolete ones) are NOT on any menu choices or exist only as 
>>>>>>>default
>>>>>>>choices and must be added as "NEW".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>FACE
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, golly.  Since you removed my comment you quoted from all 
>>>>>>context in which it was offered, I am left with ... uh ... ok!  ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Honestly, I have no argument with anything at all you said ... IF we 
>>>>>>are talking about "... people with 20 years experience ..."  I doubt 
>>>>>>anyone would seriously consider that to equate with "average user" 
>>>>>>in today's mass-market PC population.  And that's what I was talking 
>>>>>>about and that's what Firefox and Thunderbird are purportedly 
>>>>>>targeted at.  Hence my contention that telling those users to either 
>>>>>>start diddling around with about:config or editing a config file is 
>>>>>>totally contrary to the stated (or at least strongly implied) 
>>>>>>program design goals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We're talking about people going to WalMart and buying a $300 Linux 
>>>>>>computer system.  Or people calling Dell and spending $3000 on a 
>>>>>>really hot multimedia PC.  Either way, socio-economic considerations 
>>>>>>aside, while they might have 20 years of experience driving a truck, 
>>>>>>doing brain surgery, preparing taxes, managing a law office, selling 
>>>>>>rugs, etc., they do NOT have 20 years experience with PCs.  These 
>>>>>>are "average" users today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>While I agree with your general point, here we disagree.  The 
>>>>>'average' FF user, like the 'average' IE user never changes ANYTHING 
>>>>>from the default, and doesn't WANT to.  GUI or editing files isn't a 
>>>>>factor.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I don't disagree on the whole that most people never go further than the
>>>>"out of the box" defaults.  However, to some degree i do disagree 
>>>>insofar as
>>>>"doesn't WANT to ".  In general -- certainly not all -- the level of
>>>>questions asked here belies the "average user's" wants and capabilities.
>>>>I do not say that to put anybody down, but in explanation.
>>>>
>>>>An example is the recent thread about exporting bookmarks.  The 
>>>>ping-pong of
>>>>usenet messages has taken the poster more time and energy than just 
>>>>doing it
>>>>and accepting the binary outcome.  Experience only comes from doing and
>>>>mistakes are not only the kernel of learning but the result of doing.  
>>>>You
>>>>may have noticed that he who does nothing makes no mistakes.    I 
>>>>guess that
>>>>sounds to rough, and i know from experience the paralyzing fear that can
>>>>grip people when they are in unfamiliar territory, so to put in words 
>>>>that I
>>>>can only hope will be taken in the spirit meant, it is the fear of doing
>>>>something that prevents learning.
>>>>
>>>>To Ed: not about FF or TB, but the last change I made to Netscape 
>>>>email was
>>>>to userchrome.css per
>>>>http://ilias.ca/netscape/mailnewsfaq/#BackgroundColours .
>>>>That one sure was not in the GUI (or UI, if you prefer).
>>>>You are correct that I excerpted a single line or two from your original
>>>>post but it happens to be my favorite subject. <G>
>>>>
>>>>FACE
>>>
>>>
>>>I hope I'm not being misunderstood here.  I am NOT advocating putting 
>>>/everything/ into the preferences UI.  Nor am I advocating taking away 
>>>about:config.  The combination of the two is, to me, a decided advantage 
>>>of the Suite over FF/TB.
>>>
>>>And the ability to customize via CSS is also a great thing, if a user 
>>>should want to learn enough to do that.
>>>
>>
>>I would guess that no more than 1% of users would want to deal with 
>>about:config, and that not many more would ever traverse the entire 
>>options dialog tree.  I have found only a very small number of IE users 
>>who have ever looked at the 'Internet Options' dialog.  Many don't even 
>>know what 'Windows Explorer' is, or that it and Internet Explorer  are 
>>really the same application.  And, they don't WANT to know.  My older 
>>brother is a good example of this type of thinking.
> 
> 
> Ron, Ron, Ron..........
> 
> The difference *is* WANTing to know and i think we all 3 agree on that.
> 
> The WHY may be as simple as knowledge for the sake of knowledge.  It can
> also be necessity (more like desire) which is why I ended up activating the
> user addition to the CHROME style sheet.
> 
> The HOW comes from trying.  LEARNING comes from doing.
> 
> How many people do you know who have gained experience from doing nothing?

Me, for one.  Doing nothing for 4 months while I was ill caused me to 
lose 40 lbs., and become quite weak.  Grin.

> 
> The following anecdote is for a point, not self-aggrandizement:
> Twenty-seven years ago i was in a meeting and beforehand I picked up a trade
> rag the cover of which was "The Black Art of Systems Programming".
> I did not like the tone of the phrase or article.  Before many years passed
> I WAS a Systems Programmer (may be a term out of use today).  The point of
> that anecdote is that in a few words, i see you setting yourself into the
> role of a "Black Art" practitioner, much like that magazine title.  Resist.

I am not sure what you mean.  For me, personally, when I stop learning, 
I hope someone will roll me in a hole because I will certainly have 
stopped living.  I can't imagine, for myself, EVER getting to the point 
where I WANT to stop learning, but I know MANY people who don't want to 
learn, and resist learning anything.

> 
> There is no magic.  There is neither smoke nor mirrors.  They are all, in
> the end, flat files of code -- some compiled, some interpreted.....
> 
> But it is a system.  It has bloat files and it has key files.  Mess up a key
> file and the whole house of cards for that application comes tumbling down.
> 
> What will happen?  Will your monitor blow out and into your face?  No.
> Will the CPU suddenly surge and then cease?  No.
> Will the platters of your harddrive come spinning through the computer case?
> No.
>

Well, we hope not, but my niece had one of those old fashioned screaming 
noise from the disk drive failures last week...

> You restore from backup or in the worst case scenario, reinstall.  
> 
> You lose important data?  Maybe.  You DID back it up first didn't you?
> 
> CAUTION prevents data loss.
> 
> All of this from WANTing to know.  How does the watch work.  Can I make it
> run backwards?
> 
> Maybe it is just 1% who want to know.  Maybe it is 2% but half of them are
> scared off by statements like "DO NOT EDIT".  You wouldn't say that would
> you? You would explain that most likely the file contents were in RAM and
> when the application closed that they would be written to disk, wouldn't
> you?  For those that don't want to know, well, maybe that is their destiny.
> 
> This ain't brain surgery but i still have many questions.
> 
> 
> FACE
0
Ron
3/15/2005 10:45:38 AM
Stan Brown wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.general:
> 
>>>>>>Stan Brown wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm disappointed -- the Firefox user interface is crud.
> 
> 
>>That FF has an abbreviated preferences dialog is not at issue.  That 
>>this makes the program 'crap', certainly IS.  What you consider a fault, 
>>the designers seem to consider a desirable feature.
> 
> 
> Since you seem towant to disagree with something I did not say, I 
> thought it might be helpful to abstract the relevant part of what I 
> _did_ say. I did not say the program is crud, let alone crap; I 
> said the UI is crud. 
> 
> If you don't recognize "crud" as an expression of my opinion of the 
> interface, I apologize.
> 
I recognize it, I simple strongly disagree with it.
I am strongly in favor of options, settings, and easy access to them, 
for myself, but I also recognize that doing this comes at a cost, and 
the for the vast majority of users, it is wasted as they will NEVER look 
at those settings.
0
Ron
3/15/2005 10:48:29 AM
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 04:45:38 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

>FACE wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:18:37 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>> 

<Large snippage>
 
>> How many people do you know who have gained experience from doing nothing?
>
>Me, for one.  Doing nothing for 4 months while I was ill caused me to 
>lose 40 lbs., and become quite weak.  Grin.
>

Ok.  You got me there.

>  Resist.
>
>I am not sure what you mean.  For me, personally, when I stop learning, 
>I hope someone will roll me in a hole because I will certainly have 
>stopped living.  I can't imagine, for myself, EVER getting to the point 
>where I WANT to stop learning, but I know MANY people who don't want to 
>learn, and resist learning anything.
>

I guess my internal thoughts did not get to the keyboard -- not uncommon.
I was saying that those that want to learn should not be "scared off" by
those that already know.  That those "in the know" should not make
themselves, or paint themselves, as an impregnable priesthood.

But yes, you are correct that many people resist learning anything new.
Me, of infinite stories (sorry :-)) recall 10 years ago when i built a man
nice little dBase III+ application system, complete with crosschecks,
customer control files and a glitzy little company logo painstakingly
created from ASCII characters for his business to replace his "bare bones"
keyboard-error prone db.  I wrote a 3 level (overview, usage, in-depth) user
documentation file only to be told by him "but I don't want to learn
anything new".  They say that lessons learned or like bridges burned, you
only have to cross them but once.  I did not do such for him again, except
for myself in the realization that I was the only person I was doing it for.

>> 
 
>> What will happen?  Will your monitor blow out and into your face?  No.
>> Will the CPU suddenly surge and then cease?  No.
>> Will the platters of your harddrive come spinning through the computer case?
>> No.
>>
>
>Well, we hope not, but my niece had one of those old fashioned screaming 
>noise from the disk drive failures last week...
>

Ouch!  Like diamonds, hardware failures are forever.


FACE
 
0
FACE
3/15/2005 2:09:36 PM
On 14.03.2005 15:36, Ed Mullen wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> I hope I'm not being misunderstood here.  I am NOT advocating putting 
> /everything/ into the preferences UI.  Nor am I advocating taking away 
> about:config.  The combination of the two is, to me, a decided advantage 
> of the Suite over FF/TB.

Pardon me for not following the "entire" conversation but I have total
control over UI prefs in both FF and TB via about:config in FF and the
aboutconfig extension in TB. Also have total control over CSS with
extensions. So, what's the hangup here?


-- 
Jay Garcia Netscape Champion - Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
Posting Guidelines - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org/guidelines.html
0
Jay
3/15/2005 4:14:21 PM
On 14.03.2005 19:14, Ron Hunter wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 14.03.2005 13:28, Ron Hunter wrote:
>> 
>>  --- Original Message ---
>> 
>> 
>>>>An "appliance" is a piece of equipment designed for a particular use. FF
>>>>is not an appliance but rather an application that can be used on an
>>>>"appliance".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Are you saying computers have reached the 'appliance' stage?  I disagree.
>> 
>> 
>> Computers are appliances by definition. Maybe you're thinking of a
>> refrigerator! :-)
>> 
> 
> Your definition of 'appliance' obviously doesn't match mine.  I consider 
> an 'appliance' to be something that is so commonly used that one need 
> not read the manual to use it.  How many people do you know who have 
> actually READ the manual for their refrigerator?

Hate to answer a question with a question but ..

How many people do you know that have not read the manual that comes
with their computer. And for that matter how many people do you know
that read ANY manual ??? :-)

"If all else fails RTFM" seems to be the prevailing scenario. ;-)

-- 
Jay Garcia Netscape Champion - Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
Posting Guidelines - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org/guidelines.html
0
Jay
3/15/2005 4:17:12 PM
On 14.03.2005 22:09, FACE wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> How many people do you know who have gained experience from doing nothing?

Me ..

I did absolutely NOTHING yesterday and today will be a repeat. What a
wonderful "experience" !! :-)

-- 
Jay Garcia Netscape Champion - Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
Posting Guidelines - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org/guidelines.html
0
Jay
3/15/2005 4:23:30 PM
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:23:30 -0600, Jay Garcia <Jay@JayNOSPAMGarcia.com>
wrote:

>On 14.03.2005 22:09, FACE wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> How many people do you know who have gained experience from doing nothing?
>
>Me ..
>
>I did absolutely NOTHING yesterday and today will be a repeat. What a
>wonderful "experience" !! :-)

Does that make you an appliance or a refrigerator?
0
FACE
3/15/2005 5:20:35 PM
On 15.03.2005 11:20, FACE wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:23:30 -0600, Jay Garcia <Jay@JayNOSPAMGarcia.com>
> wrote:
> 
>>On 14.03.2005 22:09, FACE wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> How many people do you know who have gained experience from doing nothing?
>>
>>Me ..
>>
>>I did absolutely NOTHING yesterday and today will be a repeat. What a
>>wonderful "experience" !! :-)
> 
> Does that make you an appliance or a refrigerator?

Yes, definitely, been "used" by my Wife who has yet to read the
"manual". :-)


-- 
Jay Garcia Netscape Champion - Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
Posting Guidelines - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org/guidelines.html
0
Jay
3/15/2005 8:09:17 PM
Ron Hunter wrote:
> Ed Mullen wrote:
> 
>> FACE wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:36:59 -0500, Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> <Giant snip to get to the c:\ of the matter>
>>>
>>>> I hope I'm not being misunderstood here.  I am NOT advocating 
>>>> putting /everything/ into the preferences UI.  Nor am I advocating 
>>>> taking away about:config.  The combination of the two is, to me, a 
>>>> decided advantage of the Suite over FF/TB.
>>>>
>>>> And the ability to customize via CSS is also a great thing, if a 
>>>> user should want to learn enough to do that.
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Ed Mullen
>>>> http://edmullen.net
>>>> http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/moz.html
>>>> http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/seamonk.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You are not misunderstood at all.  (Not even misunderestimated!)
>>>
>>> I understand the thrust of your original post and understand what you 
>>> meant.
>>> I was pointing out that there are those times when the more obscure 
>>> options
>>> may need to be implemented. (Everything can not be put in the interface
>>> settings.)
>>>
>>> Cheers and all,
>>>
>>> FACE
>>
>>
>>
>> Absolutely agree.  The nice thing that I've found with Mozilla is that 
>> it seems to fit best with the "average" users I support.  Once its 
>> basic setup is done most of them don't need to poke around the 
>> settings (my wife falls into this category; she just yells at me to 
>> fix/change something and doesn't want to know anything about it).
> 
> 
> Mine also.  That's why SHE used Mozilla Suite and I use FF/TB.
> 
>>
>> The next level of user will get curious or want to change something 
>> and ask me how to find the setting (much like a lot of questions on 
>> the newsgroups).  Once they've discovered that it's no more mysterious 
>> than the Windows apps they're used to, they'll get to investigating on 
>> their own.
>>
> 
> Kinda dangerous there....
> 
> 
>> A very few of them will reach a point where they start browsing my 
>> site and the other links I provide there and start experimenting on 
>> their own.  Then they'll say something like:  "Hey! I'm getting almost 
>> as geeky as you are, Ed!" That's when I tell them: "Yup, you are now 
>> almost as /dangerous/ as I am!"  ;-)
>>
> 
> Much more, they haven't your experience.
> 

Ahh!  But how will they ever learn if they don't try? :-)

-- 
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/moz.html
http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/seamonk.html
0
Ed
3/16/2005 1:50:58 AM
Ron Hunter wrote:

> Stan Brown wrote:
> 
>> "Ron Hunter" wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.general:
>>
>>>>>>> Stan Brown wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm disappointed -- the Firefox user interface is crud.
>>
>>
>>
>>> That FF has an abbreviated preferences dialog is not at issue.  That 
>>> this makes the program 'crap', certainly IS.  What you consider a 
>>> fault, the designers seem to consider a desirable feature.
>>
>>
>>
>> Since you seem towant to disagree with something I did not say, I 
>> thought it might be helpful to abstract the relevant part of what I 
>> _did_ say. I did not say the program is crud, let alone crap; I said 
>> the UI is crud.
>> If you don't recognize "crud" as an expression of my opinion of the 
>> interface, I apologize.
>>
> I recognize it, I simple strongly disagree with it.
> I am strongly in favor of options, settings, and easy access to them, 
> for myself, but I also recognize that doing this comes at a cost, and 
> the for the vast majority of users, it is wasted as they will NEVER look 
> at those settings.

If the options are there they can be used if needed.  If they are not 
there the user has been done a disservice and has fewer options.  Not a 
good thing by any measure.

The "cost," as I've pointed out here and at 
http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/moz_compare.html, is negligible if not 
practically indiscernable.  So, valuable functionality has been stripped 
out of the application in a pointless quest for an advantage that has 
not been gained.

-- 
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/moz.html
http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/seamonk.html
0
Ed
3/16/2005 6:33:36 AM
Ed Mullen wrote:

> 
> The "cost," as I've pointed out here and at 
> http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/moz_compare.html, is negligible if not 
> practically indiscernable.  So, valuable functionality has been stripped 
> out of the application in a pointless quest for an advantage that has 
> not been gained.

Additionally, they talk about the individual apps being faster because 
they're "slimmer", but all the benchmarks i've seen show the mozilla 
suite to be negligably faster at rendering webpages.  i haven't seen any 
recent figures for startup time, but based on my own perception, they 
seem pretty damn close to even.

-scratch
0
scratch
3/16/2005 6:52:03 AM
FACE wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 04:45:38 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>FACE wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:18:37 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>>>
> 
> 
> <Large snippage>
>  
> 
>>>How many people do you know who have gained experience from doing nothing?
>>
>>Me, for one.  Doing nothing for 4 months while I was ill caused me to 
>>lose 40 lbs., and become quite weak.  Grin.
>>
> 
> 
> Ok.  You got me there.
> 
> 
>> Resist.
>>
>>I am not sure what you mean.  For me, personally, when I stop learning, 
>>I hope someone will roll me in a hole because I will certainly have 
>>stopped living.  I can't imagine, for myself, EVER getting to the point 
>>where I WANT to stop learning, but I know MANY people who don't want to 
>>learn, and resist learning anything.
>>
> 
> 
> I guess my internal thoughts did not get to the keyboard -- not uncommon.
> I was saying that those that want to learn should not be "scared off" by
> those that already know.  That those "in the know" should not make
> themselves, or paint themselves, as an impregnable priesthood.
> 
> But yes, you are correct that many people resist learning anything new.
> Me, of infinite stories (sorry :-)) recall 10 years ago when i built a man
> nice little dBase III+ application system, complete with crosschecks,
> customer control files and a glitzy little company logo painstakingly
> created from ASCII characters for his business to replace his "bare bones"
> keyboard-error prone db.  I wrote a 3 level (overview, usage, in-depth) user
> documentation file only to be told by him "but I don't want to learn
> anything new".  They say that lessons learned or like bridges burned, you
> only have to cross them but once.  I did not do such for him again, except
> for myself in the realization that I was the only person I was doing it for.
> 
> 
>  
> 
>>>What will happen?  Will your monitor blow out and into your face?  No.
>>>Will the CPU suddenly surge and then cease?  No.
>>>Will the platters of your harddrive come spinning through the computer case?
>>>No.
>>>
>>
>>Well, we hope not, but my niece had one of those old fashioned screaming 
>>noise from the disk drive failures last week...
>>
> 
> 
> Ouch!  Like diamonds, hardware failures are forever.
> 
> 
> FACE
>  
She was VERY lucky.  She let it cool overnight, and got her data copied 
off of it.  I guess it was just a bearing, not a head crash...
0
Ron
3/16/2005 7:22:08 AM
Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 14.03.2005 19:14, Ron Hunter wrote:
> 
>  --- Original Message ---
> 
> 
>>Jay Garcia wrote:
>>
>>>On 14.03.2005 13:28, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>An "appliance" is a piece of equipment designed for a particular use. FF
>>>>>is not an appliance but rather an application that can be used on an
>>>>>"appliance".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Are you saying computers have reached the 'appliance' stage?  I disagree.
>>>
>>>
>>>Computers are appliances by definition. Maybe you're thinking of a
>>>refrigerator! :-)
>>>
>>
>>Your definition of 'appliance' obviously doesn't match mine.  I consider 
>>an 'appliance' to be something that is so commonly used that one need 
>>not read the manual to use it.  How many people do you know who have 
>>actually READ the manual for their refrigerator?
> 
> 
> Hate to answer a question with a question but ..
> 
> How many people do you know that have not read the manual that comes
> with their computer. And for that matter how many people do you know
> that read ANY manual ??? :-)
> 
> "If all else fails RTFM" seems to be the prevailing scenario. ;-)
> 
My wife stuffs all the manuals for household items in a drawer for 
'future reference'.  I am, by nature, a manual reader.  When I get a new 
device, I fast-read the manual, then go back through it item by item, 
and keep it in the bathroom for a while for 'meditative reading'.  Ok, 
so I may well be unique in this strange perversion.

But I suspect most computer users at least KNOW where the manual can be 
found...
0
Ron
3/16/2005 7:25:08 AM
FACE wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:23:30 -0600, Jay Garcia <Jay@JayNOSPAMGarcia.com>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>On 14.03.2005 22:09, FACE wrote:
>>
>>--- Original Message ---
>>
>>
>>>How many people do you know who have gained experience from doing nothing?
>>
>>Me ..
>>
>>I did absolutely NOTHING yesterday and today will be a repeat. What a
>>wonderful "experience" !! :-)
> 
> 
> Does that make you an appliance or a refrigerator?

Certainly not a toaster, they at least 'popup'.
0
Ron
3/16/2005 7:26:07 AM
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:25:08 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 14.03.2005 19:14, Ron Hunter wrote:
>> 
>>  --- Original Message ---
>> 
>> 
>>>Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 14.03.2005 13:28, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>An "appliance" is a piece of equipment designed for a particular use. FF
>>>>>>is not an appliance but rather an application that can be used on an
>>>>>>"appliance".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you saying computers have reached the 'appliance' stage?  I disagree.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Computers are appliances by definition. Maybe you're thinking of a
>>>>refrigerator! :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>Your definition of 'appliance' obviously doesn't match mine.  I consider 
>>>an 'appliance' to be something that is so commonly used that one need 
>>>not read the manual to use it.  How many people do you know who have 
>>>actually READ the manual for their refrigerator?
>> 
>> 
>> Hate to answer a question with a question but ..
>> 
>> How many people do you know that have not read the manual that comes
>> with their computer. And for that matter how many people do you know
>> that read ANY manual ??? :-)
>> 
>> "If all else fails RTFM" seems to be the prevailing scenario. ;-)
>> 
>My wife stuffs all the manuals for household items in a drawer for 
>'future reference'.  I am, by nature, a manual reader.  When I get a new 
>device, I fast-read the manual, then go back through it item by item, 
>and keep it in the bathroom for a while for 'meditative reading'.  Ok, 
>so I may well be unique in this strange perversion.
>
>But I suspect most computer users at least KNOW where the manual can be 
>found...

I've been a software developer for 35 years and I read manuals
(software, appliances, power tools, etc.) as you do.  Not only can
they actually be interesting, but I almost always find little useful
tidbits of info that are very useful.  Better than owning a DVD player
for years and then finding out "Oh, so THAT's how you do that!"  Also,
the only way you can plausibly assert that "yes, I've RTFM."
0
RAV
3/16/2005 2:31:08 PM
Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 14.03.2005 22:09, FACE wrote:
> 
>  --- Original Message ---
> 
> 
>>How many people do you know who have gained experience from doing nothing?
> 
> 
> Me ..
> 
> I did absolutely NOTHING yesterday and today will be a repeat. What a
> wonderful "experience" !! :-)
> 
How boring! To me sitting in silence doing nothing drives me batty.

I'm one of these people that has got to have a TV or Radio on even when 
working on computer and definitly so when driving in the car. IF I 
didn't have radio on in Car I would have a wreck within 50-60 miles of 
starting out.

If I sit in front of a TV and I am Tired I drop off to sleep.

To even sleep well at night I have to have one of those radio shack 
Talking watches sounding off the hours. If I don't hear any sound my 
mind is going 90 miles an hour.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET   |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street      |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112   |pjones@kimbanet.com, ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto:pjones@kimbanet.com

<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/90th_Birthday/index.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Fulcher/default.html>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Harris/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Jones/default.htm>

<http://vpea.exis.net>
0
Phillip
3/16/2005 9:17:21 PM
Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 14.03.2005 15:36, Ed Mullen wrote:
> 
>  --- Original Message ---
> 
> 
>>I hope I'm not being misunderstood here.  I am NOT advocating putting 
>>/everything/ into the preferences UI.  Nor am I advocating taking away 
>>about:config.  The combination of the two is, to me, a decided advantage 
>>of the Suite over FF/TB.
> 
> 
> Pardon me for not following the "entire" conversation but I have total
> control over UI prefs in both FF and TB via about:config in FF and the
> aboutconfig extension in TB. Also have total control over CSS with
> extensions. So, what's the hangup here?
> 
> 

Yes but you one of these engineer types. For us average users ho don't 
even know where the dipstick is in the modern car, who can tell what's 
going on there.

I know a little something. I and I have difficulty knowing what all the 
arcane commands are in the about config file.

That's the problem. 99% of the people using web Browsers and Mail 
programs hardly even know what button to punch to make their computer 
come on and move the mouse around.

You developer types don't realize its "Consumers" that use this stuff. 
Not Developers.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET   |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street      |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112   |pjones@kimbanet.com, ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto:pjones@kimbanet.com

<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/90th_Birthday/index.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Fulcher/default.html>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Harris/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Jones/default.htm>

<http://vpea.exis.net>
0
Phillip
3/16/2005 9:22:44 PM
Ron Hunter wrote:
> Jay Garcia wrote:
> 
>> On 14.03.2005 19:14, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>
>>  --- Original Message ---
>>
>>
>>> Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14.03.2005 13:28, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> An "appliance" is a piece of equipment designed for a particular 
>>>>>> use. FF
>>>>>> is not an appliance but rather an application that can be used on an
>>>>>> "appliance".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you saying computers have reached the 'appliance' stage?  I 
>>>>> disagree.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Computers are appliances by definition. Maybe you're thinking of a
>>>> refrigerator! :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your definition of 'appliance' obviously doesn't match mine.  I 
>>> consider an 'appliance' to be something that is so commonly used that 
>>> one need not read the manual to use it.  How many people do you know 
>>> who have actually READ the manual for their refrigerator?
>>
>>
>>
>> Hate to answer a question with a question but ..
>>
>> How many people do you know that have not read the manual that comes
>> with their computer. And for that matter how many people do you know
>> that read ANY manual ??? :-)
>>
>> "If all else fails RTFM" seems to be the prevailing scenario. ;-)
>>
> My wife stuffs all the manuals for household items in a drawer for 
> 'future reference'.  I am, by nature, a manual reader.  When I get a new 
> device, I fast-read the manual, then go back through it item by item, 
> and keep it in the bathroom for a while for 'meditative reading'.  Ok, 
> so I may well be unique in this strange perversion.
> 
> But I suspect most computer users at least KNOW where the manual can be 
> found...
  Ahh! I keep MacAddict and MacWorld Magazines in the Bathroom.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET   |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street      |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112   |pjones@kimbanet.com, ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto:pjones@kimbanet.com

<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/90th_Birthday/index.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Fulcher/default.html>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Harris/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Jones/default.htm>

<http://vpea.exis.net>
0
Phillip
3/16/2005 9:24:56 PM
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:
> Jay Garcia wrote:
> 
>> On 14.03.2005 15:36, Ed Mullen wrote:
>>
>>  --- Original Message ---
>>
>>
>>> I hope I'm not being misunderstood here.  I am NOT advocating putting 
>>> /everything/ into the preferences UI.  Nor am I advocating taking 
>>> away about:config.  The combination of the two is, to me, a decided 
>>> advantage of the Suite over FF/TB.
>>
>>
>>
>> Pardon me for not following the "entire" conversation but I have total
>> control over UI prefs in both FF and TB via about:config in FF and the
>> aboutconfig extension in TB. Also have total control over CSS with
>> extensions. So, what's the hangup here?
>>
>>
> 
> Yes but you one of these engineer types. For us average users ho don't 
> even know where the dipstick is in the modern car, who can tell what's 
> going on there.
> 
> I know a little something. I and I have difficulty knowing what all the 
> arcane commands are in the about config file.
> 
> That's the problem. 99% of the people using web Browsers and Mail 
> programs hardly even know what button to punch to make their computer 
> come on and move the mouse around.
> 
> You developer types don't realize its "Consumers" that use this stuff. 
> Not Developers.
> 
And CERTAINLY not programmers!
0
Ron
3/17/2005 7:01:12 AM
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 01:01:12 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

>> That's the problem. 99% of the people using web Browsers and Mail 
>> programs hardly even know what button to punch to make their computer 
>> come on and move the mouse around.
>> 
>> You developer types don't realize its "Consumers" that use this stuff. 
>> Not Developers.
>> 
>And CERTAINLY not programmers!

A recent example of something that  has occurred many times here which is
exemplary of getting outside the UI box, in this case FF:

>Type about:config into the location bar. Right click and choose New. 
>Add the following string pref:
>
>browser.bookmarks.file
>
>Set the value to the path to the bookmarks.html file you want to use.
(with thanks to Leonidas Jones)

This change does not take a programmer but it can't be done with a mouse
either.
0
FACE
3/17/2005 2:00:39 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Having problems with "Threads with Unread" in mozilla.support.seamonkey on news.mozilla.org in SeaMonkey v1.06.
Hello, I seem to have found another problem after uninstalling Mozilla v1.7.13 (kept my profiles and did not delete my Mozilla folder/directory to copy the extensions and plugins) and installing SeaMonkey v1.06 last night in Windows XP Pro. SP2 (all updates). 2 screen shots: http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/9589/mozillasupportseamonkeyec0.gif .... I can't seem to make "Threads with Unread" work in mozilla.support.seamonkey newsgroup on news.mozilla.org news server. I tried unsubscribing, resubscribing, changing options, compacting (compact if 100+ KB in se...

Mozilla SeaMonkey and Mozilla Sunbird on U3 Smart flash drives
Hello, everyone! My name is Valeria Zysman and I type from Buenos Aires. Well, you'll see, there's a mobile platform for USB flash drives called U3 Smart (http://u3.com/), which is designed by SanDisk. U3 Smart flash drives run on Windows 2000 SP4, Windows XP (all versions and service packs) and Windows Vista (all versions and service packs as well). It is similar to PortableApps.com platform but is NOT a PortableApps.com platform. For instance, Mozilla Firefox and Mozilla Thunderbird U3 Smart builds update without the need of reinstall all the whole program itself but the...

Rant: The Mozilla suite (aka SeaMonkey) should be a wrapper for Mozilla software
Name: Tim Chambers Email: tygrus_at_iinet.net.au Product: SeaMonkey Summary: Rant: The Mozilla suite (aka SeaMonkey) should be a wrapper for Mozilla software Comments: It seems a waste to have parallel development of browser in Firefox and SeaMonkey. The suite should be the wrapper for the other applications. A light install could just be the browser (Firefox) or add the mail client (Thunderbird). You can download Firefox to update the browser, run the Thunderbird installer to add mail client, or run the full suite installer to add/remove several. Links show in installed...

Mozilla Reps, Mozilla Rep, Mozilla Representative, ReMo, etc?
Hi, I saw something on Yammer today, that some of us write our job title as Mozilla Reps there, but some write it. Mozilla Rep Mozilla Representative Mozilla Reps I know we have other names such as ReMo MozReps MozRep IMO, it's okay to have many different names, but shouldn't we need to agree of 1 name to write properly on job title (especially on such as yammer)? How do you think? I think Mozilla Representative Jairo Ruiz Representante Oficial de Mozilla http://gpljaruiz.wordpress.com/ 2013/2/22 Yofie Setiawan <yofie@yopdesign.com> > Hi, ...

Building SeaMonkey 2.35 off mozilla-release or mozilla-38esr+THUNDERBIRD_38_VERBRANCH
rsx11m and I think that we should build SeaMonkey 2.35 off mozilla-esr38 since we can use the Thunderbird release branch which has: 1) all the patchs needed for Thunderbird/ Mailnews so we don't have to land these again on mozilla-release. 2) the latest stability and security fixes for Gecko 38 in a form which shouldn't break any APIs or ABIs that we are using. I think Callek said he prefers using mozilla-release as our base but I don't know how adamant he is. Phil -- Philip Chee <philip@aleytys.pc.my>, <philip.chee@gmail.com> http://flashblock.mozde...

Who's monkeying with the mozilla.support.seamonkey: record in my news.mozilla.com.rc file?
Every several months something corrupts the contents of the mozilla.support.seamonkey: record in the news.mozilla.com.rc file of my SM profile. All of a sudden, all of the unread articles in the newsgroup are marked as read. This happens in between news reading sessions. i.e. when I connect to the server the next time, the number of unread articles reported has dropped from whatever it was when I ended the previous reading session, down to only the number of new articles that have just arrived. If I open the .rc file with an editor, the record for the newsgroup has been modified to s...

Leaving hg.mozilla bug.mozilla to github for the leaving complicated infrastructure of mozilla.
I think the relationship between Thunderbird/SeaMonkey and gecko-dev should be like the relation ship between Atom editor vs Electron. So there is no need that Thunderbird/SeaMonkey chasing the mozilla-central. And considerate the hard for contributing code in mozilla infrastructure for thunderbird, I suggest to completely to leave the mozilla infrastructure. To reach this target, we need to do the following things. 1=E3=80=81All the repos are git based and hosted on github I've already writing scripts to mirror all branches/tags of comm & gecko-dev, They are now placed...

Leaving hg.mozilla bug.mozilla to github for the leaving complicated infrastructure of mozilla.
I think the relationship between Thunderbird/SeaMonkey and gecko-dev should be like the relation ship between Atom editor vs Electron. So there is no need that Thunderbird/SeaMonkey chasing the mozilla-central. And considerate the hard for contributing code in mozilla infrastructure for thunderbird, I suggest to completely to leave the mozilla infrastructure. To reach this target, we need to do the following things. 1=E3=80=81All the repos are git based and hosted on github I've already writing scripts to mirror all branches/tags of comm & gecko-dev, They are now placed...

Mozilla fiddles while Mozilla burns
Today I contacted three people that I had in the past convinced to switch from IE or Chrome to FF. I persuaded them to uninstall FF because of your culture of politically correct bigotry. After reading this list today, I think I'll keep doing that as a hobby. Why? Because after the politically correct witch hunt that resulted in Eich being out and radical gays being appeased, all I see here are what come across as smug attempts to deflect blame and just weather the storm. FF is the new IE, the boorish clod that wants to just dissemble or stomp over any opposition in the style of Gates. ...

Mozilla Survey Crashes Mozilla
Name: Alonso Product: Firefox Summary: Mozilla Survey Crashes Mozilla Comments: Every time the "tell us about Mozilla" survey pops up, it crashes Mozilla, right in the middle of whatever I was doing. Every time. So I never fill in a survey because that's pretty rude. Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060111 Firefox/1.5.0.1 ...

Opening Mozilla into Mozilla Mail
At one time I had 2 Mozilla icons on the desktop. One opened Mozilla into Mozilla Mail and the other opened Mozilla into Navigator. I've lost the icons and can't remember how I did it. Can anyone help? BP wrote: > At one time I had 2 Mozilla icons on the desktop. One opened Mozilla into > Mozilla Mail and the other opened Mozilla into Navigator. I've lost the > icons and can't remember how I did it. Can anyone help? > > see news.mozilla.org/dbgj16$jv54@ripley.netscape.com I hope I did this right. Andy -- to contact me, remov...

Mozilla Calendar on Mozilla Update
The calendar extension is now also being hosted on update.mozilla.org: http://update.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?id=208 Feel free to rate it. Although the best recommended way to download the calendar xpi is to use the download page at: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/calendar/download.html if you want to try it from there, make sure you go to http://update.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?id=208&page=releases and pick the correct OS because the main page does not seem to be detecting the OS properly. Mostafa ...

SeaMonkey or Mozilla
I have an old configuration with Windows 98. If we ignore security problems. Do you think that Mozilla 1.7.13 is better than SeaMonkey 1.1.8 ? 1.7 is the stable branch and I think 1.8 is not. Is it better to use Mozilla 1.7.13 for the stability ? What do you think ? Thank you very much. JR wrote: > I have an old configuration with Windows 98. > If we ignore security problems. > Do you think that Mozilla 1.7.13 is better than SeaMonkey 1.1.8 ? > 1.7 is the stable branch and I think 1.8 is not. > Is it better to use Mozilla 1.7.13 for the stability ? > What do you...

update book of mozilla, about:mozilla
There was an update to the Book of Mozilla, which didn't change the entities. Landed already a while back in bug 41152. Please have a look at your translations of the strings in toolkit/chrome/global/mozilla.dtd? Thanks Axel Axel Hecht wrote: > There was an update to the Book of Mozilla, which didn't change the > entities. Landed already a while back in bug 41152. Errata: Make that bug 411352, missed a '3'. ...

Web resources about - Mozilla seamonkey - netscape.mozilla.general

The Hawaiian Seamonkey
Diving, eating, gardening, loving the Big Island of Hawaii

The SeaMonkey® Project
The SeaMonkey project is a community effort to develop the SeaMonkeyall-in-one internet application suite (see below).Such a software suite was ...

SeaMonkey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
cross-platform Internet suite . It is the continuation of the former Mozilla Application Suite , based on the same source code. Core Mozilla ...

Review: SeaMonkey 1.1.8 for the Mac
SeaMonkey 1.1.8, the Mozilla Foundation's all-in-one Internet application, combines browsing, e-mail, HTML editing, and IRC chat.

SeaMonkey 2.3 Beta 1 arrives for testing
Based on the same Gecko browser engine as Firefox 6, SeaMonkey 2.3 Beta 1 has been released for testing. It offers improvements to WebGL that ...

SeaMonkey Offers Browser, E-Mail, and Chat
... resuscitated a group of Internet tools built by Netscapewhose spin-off, Mozilla, brought out the popular Firefox Web browser. Renamed SeaMonkey ...

SeaMonkey, Mozilla's all-in-one Internet suite, releases new beta
The SeaMonkey Project has released SeaMonkey 2.1 Beta 3 , a version that makes a lot of new functionality available to a wide audience for the ...

SeaMonkey review
Browse the web, work with mail, chat in IRC and edit HTML

SeaMonkey 2.33
... advanced e-mail, newsgroup and feed client, IRC chat, and HTML editing made simple, all your Internet needs in one application. The SeaMonkey ...

Seamonkey 1.1 Released
stuuf writes "Version 1.1 of the Seamonkey Internet Application Suite is now available, with quite a few improvements over the 1.0 series. Some ...

Resources last updated: 1/17/2016 12:13:17 PM