Michael Marsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 12/17/05, [KS] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well the trademark issues reason is understandable as there has been
>> lots (yes lots) of discussion on that topic. So if firefox is
>> available as 1.4.99+1.5rc3, why is it that an apt-get dist-upgrad
On 12/18/05, [KS] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Same here. Keeping Firefox running for long hours eats up more and more
> memory. The experiment I report earlier was done on a new instance of
> each browser, so it does not show the effects of long term use. Also the
> test did not involve opening pa
Marc Shapiro wrote:
> Micha Feigin wrote:
>
>> My experience is that initially firefox uses less memory then opera
>> (around 25
>> MB). The memory seems to grow comparable to the amount of time its
>> been open
>> and the number of pages opened (even in the same window, not in
>> parallel). I
>>
Micha Feigin wrote:
My experience is that initially firefox uses less memory then opera (around 25
MB). The memory seems to grow comparable to the amount of time its been open
and the number of pages opened (even in the same window, not in parallel). I
just opened several pages of the same news
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 19:12:56 -0500
"[KS]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Micha Feigin wrote:
> >
> > On the other hand, its still a crazy memory hog (almost 100MB with a single
> > window, that can not be good coding, its about as bad as explorer). I stick
> > with opera for the moment.
> >
> I he
On Saturday 17 December 2005 5:55 pm, Scott wrote:
> I had gotten Diggler to work on some of the Firefox betas either by
> editing the file or using Nightly Tester Tools. Frankly though, it's
> apparent that the developer has long ago abandoned this extension, so I
> decided I just had to find
Scott wrote:
> I found it. It's one of the features of the official Google Toolbar.
> I've dragged and dropped the "up one level" button from the Google
> Toolbar to where Diggler used to be. It's not as good, but it will have
> to do.
>
Google Toolbar seems to be a bloat to meatleast the w
Micha Feigin wrote:
>
> On the other hand, its still a crazy memory hog (almost 100MB with a single
> window, that can not be good coding, its about as bad as explorer). I stick
> with opera for the moment.
>
I heard that 1.5 was using more memory than 1.0.x because of the new
feature of fast bac
On 12/17/05, Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I had gotten Diggler to work on some of the Firefox betas either by
> editing the file or using Nightly Tester Tools. Frankly though, it's
> apparent that the developer has long ago abandoned this extension, so I
> decided I just had to find an alter
Scott wrote:
>
> This is what I don't understand.: Isn't Firefox a trademark too? Why
> is using that name acceptable but using "Mozilla" unacceptable?
>
>
>
I'm sure renaming mozilla-firefox to firefox is not the end of the
trademark problems with mozilla.org. I haven't heard anything latel
[KS] wrote:
Darryl Clarke wrote:
the 'mozilla-firefox' package is changed to 'firefox'. Due to
trademark issues of course.
the only 'firefox' package should be the 1.4.99+ one, the
'mozilla-firefox' should be 1.0.7 -- they conflict, because 'firefox'
is a replacement for 'mozilla-firefox'
Michael Marsh wrote:
On 12/17/05, Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Michael Marsh wrote:
> At the moment, I'm very glad that it doesn't. Aside from a few
> extensions which didn't have 1.5-compatible versions yet, I couldn't
> get java working in 1.5.
I'd give it a another try. 1.5 is much fast
On 12/17/05, Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael Marsh wrote:
> > At the moment, I'm very glad that it doesn't. Aside from a few
> > extensions which didn't have 1.5-compatible versions yet, I couldn't
> > get java working in 1.5.
> I'd give it a another try. 1.5 is much faster than 1.0.x.
Michael Marsh wrote:
On 12/17/05, [KS] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well the trademark issues reason is understandable as there has been
lots (yes lots) of discussion on that topic. So if firefox is
available as 1.4.99+1.5rc3, why is it that an apt-get dist-upgrade does
not replace my mozilla-
Nate Bargmann([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
> * Wayne Topa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005 Dec 17 13:09 -0600]:
>
> > do
> > apt-cache policy firefox
> > and
> > apt-cache policy mozilla-firefox
> >
> > The light will shine
>
> What exactly does this prove other than mozilla-firefox is
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:25:58 -0500
"[KS]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Darryl Clarke wrote:
> >
> > the 'mozilla-firefox' package is changed to 'firefox'. Due to
> > trademark issues of course.
> >
> > the only 'firefox' package should be the 1.4.99+ one, the
> > 'mozilla-firefox' should be 1.0
Nate Bargmann wrote:
> * Wayne Topa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005 Dec 17 13:09 -0600]:
>
>
>>do
>>apt-cache policy firefox
>>and
>>apt-cache policy mozilla-firefox
>>
>>The light will shine
>
>
> What exactly does this prove other than mozilla-firefox is installed
> and firefox is not here and that
* Wayne Topa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005 Dec 17 13:09 -0600]:
> do
> apt-cache policy firefox
> and
> apt-cache policy mozilla-firefox
>
> The light will shine
What exactly does this prove other than mozilla-firefox is installed
and firefox is not here and that firefox has a long version string wi
On 12/17/05, [KS] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well the trademark issues reason is understandable as there has been
> lots (yes lots) of discussion on that topic. So if firefox is
> available as 1.4.99+1.5rc3, why is it that an apt-get dist-upgrade does
> not replace my mozilla-firefox with fir
Darryl Clarke wrote:
>
> the 'mozilla-firefox' package is changed to 'firefox'. Due to
> trademark issues of course.
>
> the only 'firefox' package should be the 1.4.99+ one, the
> 'mozilla-firefox' should be 1.0.7 -- they conflict, because 'firefox'
> is a replacement for 'mozilla-firefox'
>
[KS]([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
> I have noticed that since about a week or so ago that there is another
> package for firefox browser namely "firefox" (version 1.4.99+1.5rc3)!
> The rc version had been in experimental earlier and now this package can
> be found in unstable.
>
>
On 12/17/05, [KS] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have noticed that since about a week or so ago that there is another
> package for firefox browser namely "firefox" (version 1.4.99+1.5rc3)!
> The rc version had been in experimental earlier and now this package can
> be found in unstable.
>
> I don'
I have noticed that since about a week or so ago that there is another
package for firefox browser namely "firefox" (version 1.4.99+1.5rc3)!
The rc version had been in experimental earlier and now this package can
be found in unstable.
I don't know if I have missed an annoucement (gladium ??) abou
23 matches
Mail list logo
