-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/26/07 14:53, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Stephen R Laniel wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 11:03:59AM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>>> Please quit top posting.
>> Here is a script that I banged out in a few minutes, which
>> surely needs much i
Steve Lamb wrote:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
>> Steve Lamb wrote:
>
>>> Paul Johnson wrote:
I think that has more to do with Opera marginalizing themselves by
expecting people to put up with *more* ads or pay for a web browser.
>>> That has little to do with what the websites do with the use
Stephen R Laniel wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 11:03:59AM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>> Please quit top posting.
>
> Here is a script that I banged out in a few minutes, which
> surely needs much improvement but will hopefully go some way
> toward making the top-posting "debate" -- which
Hal Vaughan wrote:
> On Monday 29 January 2007 18:50, Paul Johnson wrote:
> ...
>> > Oh, and everyone that uses e-mail spends their time reading every
>> > RFC out there.
>>
>> I don't expect them to. Though I do expect them to learn
>
> Damn you're demanding, aren't you?
Well, the humor of wat
Paul Johnson wrote:
> Steve Lamb wrote:
>> Paul Johnson wrote:
>>> I think that has more to do with Opera marginalizing themselves by
>>> expecting people to put up with *more* ads or pay for a web browser.
>> That has little to do with what the websites do with the user agent
>> string than anyth
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 19:17 -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Steve Lamb wrote:
>
> > Paul Johnson wrote:
> >> I think that has more to do with Opera marginalizing themselves by
> >> expecting people to put up with *more* ads or pay for a web browser.
> >
> > That has little to do with what the websit
Steve Lamb wrote:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
>> I think that has more to do with Opera marginalizing themselves by
>> expecting people to put up with *more* ads or pay for a web browser.
>
> That has little to do with what the websites do with the user agent
> string than anything else.
I don't see i
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 00:44:05 -0500
Hal Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How else are they going to fill up their 300GB hard drives if they can't
> download nudie pics?
alt.binaries.movies.divx :)
> Hal
--
David E. F
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 01:38:26AM +0100, Marcus Blumhagen wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 10:05:58AM -0500, Max Hyre wrote:
> >My understanding is that IceApe (pardon the studly caps) is an
> > unbranded version of SeaMonkey. Thus we get:
> >
> > Firefox -> Iceweasel
> >
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 03:40:45PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Hal Vaughan wrote:
>
> > On Sunday 28 January 2007 18:36, Paul Johnson wrote:
> >>
> >> I took the Pepsi Challenge and they video taped it. Pepsi lost
> >> blindfolded. Funny how you didn't see me in the Pepsi ads...
> >
> > What ma
Atis writes:
> Btw, Swiftfox (another ff clone) identifies as Firefox/2.0.0.1
> (Swiftfox). I wonder, is usage Firefox in User-Agent also covered by
> trademark?
I'm not a lawyer, but I find it extremely unlikely that such use would be
found to infringe the trademark.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSU
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 10:43:44AM -0500, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> On Sunday 28 January 2007 06:43, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 12:18:09AM -0500, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> > > Now that's just mean. See my earlier response about rudeness being
> > > a weak man's imitation of strength.
On 1/29/07, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 10:29:57PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
>
> Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061205
Iceweasel/2.0.0.1 (Debian-2.0.0.1+dfsg-2)
>
> Wow, that's a bigg'un. The User agent string has only had o
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> Don't those all come with some kind of anti-bacterial crap in them?
> that may effect the outcome.
No, but they are primarily made out of polymers.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 07:01:30PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
>> Paul Johnson wrote:
>> > I would argue that if the value of your User-Agent string affects
>> > browsing habits, then the bug is with the website, not the browser.
>>
>> This is a battle you, and any
Marc Shapiro wrote:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
>> I would argue that if the value of your User-Agent string affects
>> browsing habits, then the bug is with the website, not the browser.
>>
> Agreed. But there are many websites with that bug.
True, though if you've got the time and willing to put
Paul Johnson wrote:
> I think that has more to do with Opera marginalizing themselves by expecting
> people to put up with *more* ads or pay for a web browser.
That has little to do with what the websites do with the user agent string
than anything else.
> Sounds like the actual problem is th
Steve Lamb wrote:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
>> I would argue that if the value of your User-Agent string affects
>> browsing habits, then the bug is with the website, not the browser.
>
> This is a battle you, and anyone else who thinks like you, is going to
> lose. Opera has had user agent mung
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 03:36:40PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> I would argue that if the value of your User-Agent string affects browsing
> habits, then the bug is with the website, not the browser.
>
Good look convincing even 1% of website developers that employ such
brain-dead tactics that t
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 02:05:10AM -0500, Angelo Bertolli wrote:
>
> If it's really looking for "Firefox" then the only thing I can imagine
> is an anti-IE website done so on purpose.
>
You would be surprised. A large number of websites check user-agent
strings so that only "supported" browsers
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 03:29:07PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> I believe K-C already lost the ability to enforce Kleenex as a trademark
> after uptake made their brand the generic word for "disposable tissue
> primarily intended for your nose." Hormel is fighting an uphill battle and
> using v
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 10:05:58AM -0500, Max Hyre wrote:
>My understanding is that IceApe (pardon the studly caps) is an
> unbranded version of SeaMonkey. Thus we get:
>
> Firefox -> Iceweasel
> Thunderbird -> Icedove
> Mozilla suite -> Iceape
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 07:01:30PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
> > I would argue that if the value of your User-Agent string affects browsing
> > habits, then the bug is with the website, not the browser.
>
> This is a battle you, and anyone else who thinks like you, is goin
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 08:36:01PM -0800, Marc Shapiro wrote:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
> >Heh, here in the center of the Linux universe (Portland), lager
> >qualifies as
> >something from a can that's only suitable for killing slugs. Gotta get
> >yourself one of them Henry Weinhard's or Widmer's He
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/30/07 09:05, Max Hyre wrote:
> Marcus Blumhagen wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 08:47:45PM +0100, Jan Willem Stumpel wrote:
>>> Then there are the new names and logos themselves. What is an
>>> "Iceape"? How should this beast be pronounced?
>>
Marcus Blumhagen wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 08:47:45PM +0100, Jan Willem Stumpel wrote:
>> Then there are the new names and logos themselves. What is an
>> "Iceape"? How should this beast be pronounced?
>
> As I read the name it is a combination of "ice" and "ape". Both can
> be looked up in
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 08:47:45PM +0100, Jan Willem Stumpel wrote:
> Then there are the new names and logos themselves. What is an
> "Iceape"? How should this beast be pronounced?
As I read the name it is a combination of "ice" and "ape". Both can
be looked up in a dictionary. So now instead of a
Paul Johnson wrote:
> Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
>
>> There is actually an operational difference. In the about:config page
>> the setting general.useragent.extra.firefox is set to
>> "Iceweasel/2.0.0.1". Looks harmless, but it stopped me from logging
>> on to a website. It would only let me in
Paul Johnson wrote:
> Angelo Bertolli wrote:
>
>
>> Paul Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> Angelo Bertolli wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
I'm not clear on why Firefox couldn't be put in non-free though. (I
just figured it was for upgrades.)
>>> Why put something in non-free if
On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 20:03 -0800, Marc Shapiro wrote:
> I have a question, if anyone here has an answer...
>
> Is it the intent of the Debian team that Iceweasel actually fork the
> codebase, or are they just going to remove the nonfree bits and change
> the name of each new Firefox release? I
Paul Johnson wrote:
Heh, here in the center of the Linux universe (Portland), lager qualifies as
something from a can that's only suitable for killing slugs. Gotta get
yourself one of them Henry Weinhard's or Widmer's Hefeweizen if you wanna
do it right. :o)
Henry Weinhard's Blue Boar. Go
Paul Johnson wrote:
I would argue that if the value of your User-Agent string affects browsing
habits, then the bug is with the website, not the browser.
Agreed. But there are many websites with that bug.
--
Marc Shapiro
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
I have a question, if anyone here has an answer...
Is it the intent of the Debian team that Iceweasel actually fork the
codebase, or are they just going to remove the nonfree bits and change
the name of each new Firefox release? If the former, then it will
become a new beast. It is only a ma
On Monday 29 January 2007 00:46, Greg Folkert wrote:
...
> The actual things removed:
>
> http://gnuzilla.gnu.org/fulltree/iceweasel-1.5.0.7-g2/remove.nonfree
>
> Most all of them are Graphics related, except for the auto-updater
> for Firefox...err Iceweasel and a Platforms Debian does not support
On Monday 29 January 2007 18:40, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Hal Vaughan wrote:
> > On Sunday 28 January 2007 18:36, Paul Johnson wrote:
> >> Martin Schulze wrote:
> >> > Mike Hommey wrote:
> >> > Maybe not, because the name change makes it visible for him that
> >> > there has been a change indeed. Cha
On Monday 29 January 2007 18:50, Paul Johnson wrote:
...
> > Oh, and everyone that uses e-mail spends their time reading every
> > RFC out there.
>
> I don't expect them to. Though I do expect them to learn
Damn you're demanding, aren't you?
> > Remember you're always going to be dealing with ne
Paul Johnson wrote:
> I would argue that if the value of your User-Agent string affects browsing
> habits, then the bug is with the website, not the browser.
This is a battle you, and anyone else who thinks like you, is going to
lose. Opera has had user agent munging for it's entire existence
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 04:52:36PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
>>
>> I think his point wasn't so much the version number as the name in
>> front
>> of it. Websites don't know what Iceweasel is, they do know what Firefox
>> is.
>>
> I think that such a thing is b
Hal Vaughan wrote:
> On Sunday 28 January 2007 18:42, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> Stephen R Laniel wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 11:03:59AM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>> >> Please quit top posting.
>> >
>> > Here is a script that I banged out in a few minutes, which
>> > surely needs much i
Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 09:40:52PM +0100, Norbert Preining wrote:
>> On Sam, 27 Jan 2007, Piotr Dziubinski wrote:
>> > Iceweasel and Firefox are a different products, very similar, but
>> > different.
>>
>> Can YOU please explain me what *important* differences there ar
Angelo Bertolli wrote:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
>> Angelo Bertolli wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'm not clear on why Firefox couldn't be put in non-free though. (I
>>> just figured it was for upgrades.)
>>>
>>
>> Why put something in non-free if trivial changes to the name and artwork
>> makes it free?
>>
>
Steve Lamb wrote:
> Hal Vaughan wrote:
>> On Sunday 28 January 2007 07:01, Martin Schulze wrote:
>>> Remember the Cola tests? Blindfolded have preferred Pepsi over Coca,
>>> with eyes open the result they preferred the Coca variant.
>
>> Funny. Blindfolded I took the same as I did without the b
Hal Vaughan wrote:
> On Sunday 28 January 2007 18:36, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> Martin Schulze wrote:
>> > Mike Hommey wrote:
>> > Maybe not, because the name change makes it visible for him that
>> > there has been a change indeed. Changes from 1.0 to 1.5 or 1.5 to
>> > 2.0 may be accepted as upstr
Hal Vaughan wrote:
> On Sunday 28 January 2007 18:33, Paul Johnson wrote:
> ...
>> > Do you see a difference?
>>
>> You could have cancelled and looked into why that is. iceweasel
>> provides firefox because it *is* firefox. There is no functional
>> difference between firefox and iceweasel. Yo
Max Hyre wrote:
> John Hasler wrote:
>> Angelo writes:
>>> It was reiterated by Mozilla that if it doesn't do this, it will lose
>>> some ability to protect its trademarks. IANAL, but somehow it just
>>> doesn't sound right to me.
>>
>> It needn't be right in order to be true. Trademark law is l
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 06:04:20PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 01/29/07 08:47, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 08:44:01PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > >
> >>> You would think that after as long as we have had microwave ovens these
> >>> days
> >>> that people would be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/29/07 08:47, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 08:44:01PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> >
>>> You would think that after as long as we have had microwave ovens these days
>>> that people would be aware that microwaves require m
Doug writes:
> So what did it do to the sponge? I don't have cable/satelite/highspeed
> so I can't watch. I imagine that a natural sponge would turn into a
> puddle of goo and a fake sponge may combust.
It probably would do nothing to a brand-new artificial sponge. A dirty but
dry one might be
John Hasler wrote:
Max Hyre writes:
> Of course, they're fighting a losing battle in the casual usage...
I wrote:
> In the US they [Kimberly-Clark] have no power over casual usage
> [of the word `Kleenex'].
Max Hyre writes:
> Yes, the law offers no help there, but they fight the tendency as best
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 08:44:01PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> > You would think that after as long as we have had microwave ovens these days
> > that people would be aware that microwaves require moisture to work
> > properly...
>
> Actually, no, I wouldn't. For the longest time, I thought i
yea, verily, Angelo Bertolli sayith:
> No, I mean a non-free firefox package in addition to iceweasel. I know
> it sounds redundant, but I bet someone will start doing it eventually
> since all it takes is using Mozilla's Linux binary and putting it in deb
> format.
I've done this already for
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 10:29:57PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
>
> Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061205
> Iceweasel/2.0.0.1 (Debian-2.0.0.1+dfsg-2)
>
> Wow, that's a bigg'un. The User agent string has only had one thing
> changed.
>
> s/Iceweasel/Firefox/
>
My mis
John Hasler wrote:
> Max Hyre writes:
>> Of course, they're fighting a losing battle in the casual usage...
>
> In the US they [Kimberly-Clark] have no power over casual usage
> [of the word `Kleenex'].
Yes, the law offers no help there, but they fight the tendency as
best they can. You'll se
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/28/07 22:20, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> On Sunday 28 January 2007 22:52, Greg Folkert wrote:
>> On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 21:38 -0500, Hal Vaughan wrote:
>>> On Sunday 28 January 2007 18:33, Paul Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> Okay, I get that and thanks for the
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 09:38:02PM -0500, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> On Sunday 28 January 2007 18:33, Paul Johnson wrote:
> ...
> > > Do you see a difference?
> >
> > You could have cancelled and looked into why that is. iceweasel
> > provides firefox because it *is* firefox. There is no functional
> >
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 10:15:35PM -0500, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> On Sunday 28 January 2007 22:08, Greg Folkert wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 20:28 -0600, Dave Patterson wrote:
> > > yea, verily, Paul Johnson sayith:
> > > >..trivial changes to the name and artwork
> > > > makes it free?
> > >
> >
Paul Johnson wrote:
> Angelo Bertolli wrote:
>
>
>> I'm not clear on why Firefox couldn't be put in non-free though. (I
>> just figured it was for upgrades.)
>>
>
> Why put something in non-free if trivial changes to the name and artwork
> makes it free?
>
No, I mean a non-free firefox
On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 23:20 -0500, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> On Sunday 28 January 2007 22:52, Greg Folkert wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 21:38 -0500, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> > > On Sunday 28 January 2007 18:33, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > > Do you see a difference?
> > > >
> > > > You co
Max Hyre writes:
> Of course, they're fighting a losing battle in the casual usage...
In the US they have no power over casual usage.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sunday 28 January 2007 22:52, Greg Folkert wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 21:38 -0500, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> > On Sunday 28 January 2007 18:33, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > > > Do you see a difference?
> > >
> > > You could have cancelled and looked into why that is. iceweasel
> > > provi
On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 21:38 -0500, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> On Sunday 28 January 2007 18:33, Paul Johnson wrote:
> ...
> > > Do you see a difference?
> >
> > You could have cancelled and looked into why that is. iceweasel
> > provides firefox because it *is* firefox. There is no functional
> > differ
John Hasler wrote:
> Angelo writes:
>> It was reiterated by Mozilla that if it doesn't do this, it will lose
>> some ability to protect its trademarks. IANAL, but somehow it just
>> doesn't sound right to me.
>
> It needn't be right in order to be true. Trademark law is loony.
Actually, it's
On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 21:13 -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 04:52:36PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> >
> > I think his point wasn't so much the version number as the name in front
> > of it. Websites don't know what Iceweasel is, they do know what Firefox is.
> >
> I
On Sunday 28 January 2007 22:08, Greg Folkert wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 20:28 -0600, Dave Patterson wrote:
> > yea, verily, Paul Johnson sayith:
> > >..trivial changes to the name and artwork
> > > makes it free?
> >
> > It's still a fork. The differences will grow.
>
> The only real changes s
On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 20:28 -0600, Dave Patterson wrote:
> yea, verily, Paul Johnson sayith:
>
> >..trivial changes to the name and artwork
> > makes it free?
> >
> It's still a fork. The differences will grow.
The only real changes since its inception are; The Logos, the name and
some variable
Roberto C. Sanchez writes:
> But a browser that claims to be a Firefox-alike should function as much
> like Firefox as possible. To me that means not messing with the
> useragent string.
I think that the maintainer believes (erroneously, IMHO) that he had to
change it to avoid trademark infringem
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/28/07 17:50, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>
>> On 01/28/07 08:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 06:18:19PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
Like the people who read the CNN article about sterilizing sponges
On Sunday 28 January 2007 18:33, Paul Johnson wrote:
...
> > Do you see a difference?
>
> You could have cancelled and looked into why that is. iceweasel
> provides firefox because it *is* firefox. There is no functional
> difference between firefox and iceweasel. You're making a mountain
> out
On Sunday 28 January 2007 18:36, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Mike Hommey wrote:
> >> To be fair, it's not exactly true, because upgrading from firefox
> >> to iceweasel in debian means upgrading from version 1.0 or 1.5 to
> >> 2.0, and there are substancial changes that some peo
On Sunday 28 January 2007 18:42, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Stephen R Laniel wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 11:03:59AM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> >> Please quit top posting.
> >
> > Here is a script that I banged out in a few minutes, which
> > surely needs much improvement but will hopefull
yea, verily, Paul Johnson sayith:
>..trivial changes to the name and artwork
> makes it free?
>
It's still a fork. The differences will grow.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Stephen R Laniel wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 11:03:59AM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>> Please quit top posting.
>
> Here is a script that I banged out in a few minutes, which
> surely needs much improvement but will hopefully go some way
> toward making the top-posting "debate" -- which
Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 01/28/07 08:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 06:18:19PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> Like the people who read the CNN article about sterilizing sponges
>>> in the microwave?
>>
>> What about sterilizing sponges in the microwave?
>
> You must not re
Angelo Bertolli wrote:
> I'm not clear on why Firefox couldn't be put in non-free though. (I
> just figured it was for upgrades.)
Why put something in non-free if trivial changes to the name and artwork
makes it free?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscr
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 04:52:36PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
>
> I think his point wasn't so much the version number as the name in front
> of it. Websites don't know what Iceweasel is, they do know what Firefox is.
>
I think that such a thing is bad. I understand the purpose behind the
name
Martin Schulze wrote:
> Mike Hommey wrote:
>> To be fair, it's not exactly true, because upgrading from firefox to
>> iceweasel in debian means upgrading from version 1.0 or 1.5 to 2.0, and
>> there are substancial changes that some people dislike, myself included.
>>
>> Which means Piotr is actu
Please don't top post, we all read English in chronological (not random)
order.
http://wiki.ursine.ca/Best_Online_Quoting_Practices
Piotr Dziubinski wrote:
> Only Etch supports amd64, so I was forced to use Etch.
>
> Command I have used:
> apt-get install firefox
>
> NOT
> apt-get install icewe
Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 01/28/07 16:26, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
>>> There is actually an operational difference. In the about:config page
>>> the setting general.useragent.extra.firefox is set to
>>> "Iceweasel/2.0.0.1". Looks harmless, but it stopped me from logging
>>> on to a website. It wou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/28/07 16:26, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 09:40:52PM +0100, Norbert Preining wrote:
>> On Sam, 27 Jan 2007, Piotr Dziubinski wrote:
>>> Iceweasel and Firefox are a different products, very similar, but
>>> different.
>> Can
Angelo writes:
> It was reiterated by Mozilla that if it doesn't do this, it will lose
> some ability to protect its trademarks. IANAL, but somehow it just
> doesn't sound right to me.
It needn't be right in order to be true. Trademark law is loony.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 09:40:52PM +0100, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Sam, 27 Jan 2007, Piotr Dziubinski wrote:
> > Iceweasel and Firefox are a different products, very similar, but
> > different.
>
> Can YOU please explain me what *important* differences there are?
[...]
> Otherwise I would like
Jan Willem Stumpel wrote:
> The choice of words by the OP was unfortunate, to say the least.
> But among all his blathering there was the germ of a valid point.
>
The only potential valid point I saw coming out of it was that maybe
"transitional" wasn't the way to go. I don't know what other o
On Sunday 28 January 2007 22:04, Steve Lamb wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 06:18:19PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> >> Like the people who read the CNN article about sterilizing sponges
> >> in the microwave?
> >
> > What about sterilizing sponges in the microwave?
>
>
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 20:47:45 +0100
Jan Willem Stumpel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The choice of words by the OP was unfortunate, to say the least.
> But among all his blathering there was the germ of a valid point.
>
> Debian IMHO should carefully weigh the advantages and
> disadvantages of adhe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/28/07 15:06, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Hal Vaughan wrote:
>> On Sunday 28 January 2007 07:01, Martin Schulze wrote:
>>> Remember the Cola tests? Blindfolded have preferred Pepsi over Coca,
>>> with eyes open the result they preferred the Coca variant.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/28/07 15:04, Steve Lamb wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 06:18:19PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> Like the people who read the CNN article about sterilizing sponges
>>> in the microwave?
>
>> What about sterilizing sp
Hal Vaughan wrote:
> On Sunday 28 January 2007 07:01, Martin Schulze wrote:
>> Remember the Cola tests? Blindfolded have preferred Pepsi over Coca,
>> with eyes open the result they preferred the Coca variant.
> Funny. Blindfolded I took the same as I did without the blindfold. Coke
> either way
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 06:18:19PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> Like the people who read the CNN article about sterilizing sponges
>> in the microwave?
> What about sterilizing sponges in the microwave?
T'hell with the sponges, how does one read CNN, exactly?
--
The choice of words by the OP was unfortunate, to say the least.
But among all his blathering there was the germ of a valid point.
Debian IMHO should carefully weigh the advantages and
disadvantages of adhering --uncompromisingly-- to the letter of
its doctrine.
The renaming of the programs certa
On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 14:02 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 12:44:05AM -0500, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> > On Saturday 27 January 2007 00:32, Ron Johnson wrote:
> >
> > > (Teenagers do not have an unalienable right to do have
> > > Myspace pages
> >
> > Personally, I'm fine
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 12:44:05AM -0500, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> On Saturday 27 January 2007 00:32, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> > (Teenagers do not have an unalienable right to do have
> > Myspace pages
>
> Personally, I'm fine with letting teens on MySpace and similar
> wastelands. Let them have pl
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 09:07:44AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 01/28/07 08:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 06:18:19PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> >> Like the people who read the CNN article about sterilizing sponges
>
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 12:02:43PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
>
> I've suggested that iceweasel provides+conflicts+replaces firefox,
> which AFAICT would instead produce the output:
>
> Note, selecting iceweasel instead of firefox
> [...other stuff about packages...]
> Do you want to continue? [Y/n
On Sunday 28 January 2007 02:42, Mike Hommey wrote:
> To be fair, it's not exactly true, because upgrading from firefox to
> iceweasel in debian means upgrading from version 1.0 or 1.5 to 2.0,
> and there are substancial changes that some people dislike, myself
> included.
I don't even want to get
On Sunday 28 January 2007 06:43, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 12:18:09AM -0500, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> > On Friday 26 January 2007 23:19, Angelo Bertolli wrote:
> > > Piotr Dziubinski wrote:
> > > > Ex-Debian user...
> > > > ... back to the Gentoo
> > >
> > > If going to the Mozil
On Sunday 28 January 2007 07:01, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Mike Hommey wrote:
> > To be fair, it's not exactly true, because upgrading from firefox
> > to iceweasel in debian means upgrading from version 1.0 or 1.5 to
> > 2.0, and there are substancial changes that some people dislike,
> > myself inc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/28/07 08:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 06:18:19PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> Like the people who read the CNN article about sterilizing sponges
>> in the microwave?
>
> What about sterilizing sponges in the microwave?
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 10:33:13AM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 03:55:33PM +0100, Piotr Dziubinski wrote:
> > Only Etch supports amd64, so I was forced to use Etch.
> >
> There is an unofficial Sarge release for amd64. I use it on a couple of
> servers and many Debia
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 06:18:19PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> Like the people who read the CNN article about sterilizing sponges
> in the microwave?
What about sterilizing sponges in the microwave?
-- hendrik
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". T
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 11:48:52PM +0100, Jochen Schulz wrote:
> --
> In the west we kill people like chickens.
> [Agree] [Disagree]
No opinion. When I was in the west I didn't see any prople that
resembled chickens.
-- hendrik
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
1 - 100 of 167 matches
Mail list logo
