Looking for some guidance.
Running FireFox on XP.
Can minimize FireFox with no problem.
When I restore from the minimize position after some period of time,
usually an hour or so, get a complaint that FireFox is not responding.
This requires that I close out FireFox, then reload and things are
hunky-dory.
Any ideas where to start to solve this problem?
Lew
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 23:36:36 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>j wrote:
>
>>
>> Try disabling the plugins, they can be problematic in FF. Flash can
>> be a crasher and Chrome handles those crashes better. Memory leaks?,
>> dunno for sure.
>>
>> I'm a web developer, so I have a wide variety of browsers, FireFox
>> just doesn't seem to be the animal it used to be.
>>
>
>Unfortunately - that seems to be true. So, as a web developer, are you
>suggesting Chrome over Firefox these days? It's not clear from your comment
>above. What a shame - Firefox used to be the relief from the Microsoft
>crap, and now seems to be more of the same.
I'd rather not jump out of Microsoft's bed into Google's[*]. I'll
stick with Firefox.
[*] Apple vs. Google (cell phones) isn't a lot of choice, IMO.
On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 19:00:08 -0500, woodchucker <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 12/6/2013 8:29 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>> "Android is an operating system based on the Linux kernel,"
>>
>> Irrelevant. Can you run Linux apps, unchanged, on your cell phone?
>>
>>> For that matter the Mac OS X is *nix based
>>
>> Which doesn't make it Linux, either.
>>
>>> Each OS has it's place. But the world is trending away from windows on
>>> the mobile. Windows is a hog, with way too much that never should have
>>> been in the kernel. In mobile devices power consumption is key and *nix
>>> devices are way ahead in that as well as being leaner.
>>
>> So what? I don't care for Windows but I really have no choice. That
>> was the whole point! <sheesh>
>>
>
>Really, why not?
Support, apps. You know, the things that really matter. Only the
ultra-religious care about what goes on underneath.
>You can easily use either a mac or linux.
Sure I can. So what?
>there's very little these days that isn't browser based or java based.
>So many apps run on all platforms.
Evidently your whole life is spent on the Web. Whatever floats your
boat but I have work to do, too.
On 12/6/2013 7:25 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 19:00:08 -0500, woodchucker <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/6/2013 8:29 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>> "Android is an operating system based on the Linux kernel,"
>>>
>>> Irrelevant. Can you run Linux apps, unchanged, on your cell phone?
>>>
>>>> For that matter the Mac OS X is *nix based
>>>
>>> Which doesn't make it Linux, either.
>>>
>>>> Each OS has it's place. But the world is trending away from windows on
>>>> the mobile. Windows is a hog, with way too much that never should have
>>>> been in the kernel. In mobile devices power consumption is key and *nix
>>>> devices are way ahead in that as well as being leaner.
>>>
>>> So what? I don't care for Windows but I really have no choice. That
>>> was the whole point! <sheesh>
>>>
>>
>> Really, why not?
>
> Support, apps. You know, the things that really matter. Only the
> ultra-religious care about what goes on underneath.
>
>> You can easily use either a mac or linux.
>
> Sure I can. So what?
>
>> there's very little these days that isn't browser based or java based.
>> So many apps run on all platforms.
>
> Evidently your whole life is spent on the Web. Whatever floats your
> boat but I have work to do, too.
>
Actually my life is spent supporting extremely large systems whether
they be Linux, solaris, hpux, aix, etc.. I support terabytes of data ..
I don't care which O/S it is, as long as it is not MS. I don't
appreciate the problems I encounter when I tried having large systems
run on MS.
you are just a grumpy ass today.
So go to the bathroom and take a shit.. maybe you'll come back a nicer
grump.
--
Jeff
On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 19:44:15 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "Bill" wrote:
>>
>>> Mine was Yahoo.com until I was increasingly bombarded with obnoxious
>>> ads, and the frequency of such ads in similar places still appears
>>> to be on the increase.
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>> So what are you using instead of yahoo.com?
>
>google.com, but it's a matter of "avoidance", rather than because I like
>the google.com page so much.
>Maybe someone can propose one that is interesting and also not obnoxious.
How about
http://vintagemachinery.org/
On 12/4/2013 6:47 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Looking for some guidance.
>
> Running FireFox on XP.
>
> Can minimize FireFox with no problem.
>
> When I restore from the minimize position after some period of time,
> usually an hour or so, get a complaint that FireFox is not responding.
>
> This requires that I close out FireFox, then reload and things are
> hunky-dory.
>
> Any ideas where to start to solve this problem?
Disable ALL add-ons and see if the problem persists.
If it does, do a complete uninstall, hard reboot the computer and a
complete reinstall of the latest version.
See what happens and THEN begin adding your add-ons (if any) one by one,
holding your breath each time to see if the symptoms come back.
On 12/05/2013 05:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 23:36:36 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> j wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Try disabling the plugins, they can be problematic in FF. Flash can
>>> be a crasher and Chrome handles those crashes better. Memory leaks?,
>>> dunno for sure.
>>>
>>> I'm a web developer, so I have a wide variety of browsers, FireFox
>>> just doesn't seem to be the animal it used to be.
>>>
>>
>> Unfortunately - that seems to be true. So, as a web developer, are you
>> suggesting Chrome over Firefox these days? It's not clear from your comment
>> above. What a shame - Firefox used to be the relief from the Microsoft
>> crap, and now seems to be more of the same.
>
> I'd rather not jump out of Microsoft's bed into Google's[*]. I'll
> stick with Firefox.
>
> [*] Apple vs. Google (cell phones) isn't a lot of choice, IMO.
>
Google bought the old Motorola cell phone division (Motorola Mobility)
after Mot split into Motorola Mobility and Motorola Solutions.
If you're talking about Android phones, Android is Linux based.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
On 12/05/2013 08:48 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 20:17:14 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 12/05/2013 08:11 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 19:59:31 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/05/2013 07:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 19:22:21 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/05/2013 07:08 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:58:52 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/05/2013 06:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:33:08 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/05/2013 05:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 23:36:36 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> j wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try disabling the plugins, they can be problematic in FF. Flash can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a crasher and Chrome handles those crashes better. Memory leaks?,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dunno for sure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm a web developer, so I have a wide variety of browsers, FireFox
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just doesn't seem to be the animal it used to be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately - that seems to be true. So, as a web developer, are you
>>>>>>>>>>>> suggesting Chrome over Firefox these days? It's not clear from your comment
>>>>>>>>>>>> above. What a shame - Firefox used to be the relief from the Microsoft
>>>>>>>>>>>> crap, and now seems to be more of the same.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd rather not jump out of Microsoft's bed into Google's[*]. I'll
>>>>>>>>>>> stick with Firefox.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [*] Apple vs. Google (cell phones) isn't a lot of choice, IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Google bought the old Motorola cell phone division (Motorola Mobility)
>>>>>>>>>> after Mot split into Motorola Mobility and Motorola Solutions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It also owns Android.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you're talking about Android phones, Android is Linux based.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not irrelevant if you're comparing M$ and Google phones.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course it is. It doesn't matter a whit where Android comes from,
>>>>>>> it is *NOT* Linux. I wasn't really, but that part is apt, anyway.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Android interface is most certainly built on top of the linux
>>>>>> kernel. There are may interfaces that run on top of the linux kernel,
>>>>>> KDE, GNOME, XFCE,....
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, good grief, another Linux junky. "The world is Linux!!!!"
>>>>> <GMAFB!>
>>>>>
>>>> I noticed you didn't refute my statement.
>>>
>>> Why would I refute irrelevance. Your whole argument is.
>>>
>>>> As Jack Nicholson said in "A
>>>> Few Good Men"... :-)
>>> Idiot.
>>>
>>>> And yes, been using linux since 1995.
>>>
>>> Idiot.
>>>
>>>> And yes, the internet is run mostly on linux servers on all types of
>>>> hardware from Pea Seas up to and including IBM mainframes, not to
>>>> mention most infrastructure hardware.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant.
>>>
>> Ah, another M$ fan boi...
>
> Idiot. There are none so blind as the true believer.
>
Ain't *that* the truth!
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 18:56:31 -0500, woodchucker <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 12/5/2013 10:11 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 19:59:31 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>t.
>>
>>> And yes, been using linux since 1995.
>>
>> Idiot.
>Wow, what's up your ass about Linux?
If you could read, you'd figure out that I have nothing against Linux,
other than it's unusable for most. I *do* have a problem with Linux
evangelists, however. They're as bad as the 'Doze evangelists of 20
years back, if not worse.
>Linux is a fully capable O/S... many servers SUN/HP/IBM are now on LINUX
>vs their own version of software. Linux does not crash like MS.
>it's not hacked as regularly.
Absolutely irrelevant.
>If you prefer Mac or Windoze that's your thing.
>I use Win7 and Linux, and don't have a problem with it.
>But IDIOT??? no, he's probably smarter than most, being a user since 95
>when it really had to be manually configured , shows that he is not an
>IDIOT...
The *FACT* that he can't read and insists on evangelizing does show
that he is indeed an IDIOT. You just joined that group.
On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 20:17:14 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 12/05/2013 08:11 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 19:59:31 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/05/2013 07:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 19:22:21 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/05/2013 07:08 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:58:52 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/05/2013 06:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:33:08 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 12/05/2013 05:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 23:36:36 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> j wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Try disabling the plugins, they can be problematic in FF. Flash can
>>>>>>>>>>>> be a crasher and Chrome handles those crashes better. Memory leaks?,
>>>>>>>>>>>> dunno for sure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm a web developer, so I have a wide variety of browsers, FireFox
>>>>>>>>>>>> just doesn't seem to be the animal it used to be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately - that seems to be true. So, as a web developer, are you
>>>>>>>>>>> suggesting Chrome over Firefox these days? It's not clear from your comment
>>>>>>>>>>> above. What a shame - Firefox used to be the relief from the Microsoft
>>>>>>>>>>> crap, and now seems to be more of the same.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd rather not jump out of Microsoft's bed into Google's[*]. I'll
>>>>>>>>>> stick with Firefox.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [*] Apple vs. Google (cell phones) isn't a lot of choice, IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Google bought the old Motorola cell phone division (Motorola Mobility)
>>>>>>>>> after Mot split into Motorola Mobility and Motorola Solutions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It also owns Android.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you're talking about Android phones, Android is Linux based.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not irrelevant if you're comparing M$ and Google phones.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course it is. It doesn't matter a whit where Android comes from,
>>>>>> it is *NOT* Linux. I wasn't really, but that part is apt, anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The Android interface is most certainly built on top of the linux
>>>>> kernel. There are may interfaces that run on top of the linux kernel,
>>>>> KDE, GNOME, XFCE,....
>>>>
>>>> Oh, good grief, another Linux junky. "The world is Linux!!!!"
>>>> <GMAFB!>
>>>>
>>> I noticed you didn't refute my statement.
>>
>> Why would I refute irrelevance. Your whole argument is.
>>
>>> As Jack Nicholson said in "A
>>> Few Good Men"... :-)
>> Idiot.
>>
>>> And yes, been using linux since 1995.
>>
>> Idiot.
>>
>>> And yes, the internet is run mostly on linux servers on all types of
>>> hardware from Pea Seas up to and including IBM mainframes, not to
>>> mention most infrastructure hardware.
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>>
>Ah, another M$ fan boi...
Idiot. There are none so blind as the true believer.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
> The *FACT* that he can't read and insists on evangelizing
> does show that he is indeed an IDIOT. You just joined
> that group.
World [email protected] plus 7.129 billion idiots and/or morons.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net
On 12/05/2013 06:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:33:08 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 12/05/2013 05:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 23:36:36 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> j wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Try disabling the plugins, they can be problematic in FF. Flash can
>>>>> be a crasher and Chrome handles those crashes better. Memory leaks?,
>>>>> dunno for sure.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm a web developer, so I have a wide variety of browsers, FireFox
>>>>> just doesn't seem to be the animal it used to be.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately - that seems to be true. So, as a web developer, are you
>>>> suggesting Chrome over Firefox these days? It's not clear from your comment
>>>> above. What a shame - Firefox used to be the relief from the Microsoft
>>>> crap, and now seems to be more of the same.
>>>
>>> I'd rather not jump out of Microsoft's bed into Google's[*]. I'll
>>> stick with Firefox.
>>>
>>> [*] Apple vs. Google (cell phones) isn't a lot of choice, IMO.
>>>
>> Google bought the old Motorola cell phone division (Motorola Mobility)
>> after Mot split into Motorola Mobility and Motorola Solutions.
>
> It also owns Android.
>
>> If you're talking about Android phones, Android is Linux based.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
Not irrelevant if you're comparing M$ and Google phones.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 19:03:01 -0500, woodchucker <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 12/6/2013 5:20 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> Of course. There are none so blind as a true believer.
>>>>
>>>>> Linux is not the Linux of even a few years ago.
>>>>
>>>> Also completely irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>> <completely irrelevant chest thumping snipped>
>>>>
>>> Clearly, you've made up your mind to believe what you believe.
>>
>> Clearly you can neither read nor think.
>>
>>> Go, live in your own world.
>>
>> You really are a moron.
>>
>
>You're off your meds again aren't you?
>Damn, I'm going to have to call the looney bin again.
You're a lefty, aren't you?
On 12/06/2013 05:22 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 19:03:01 -0500, woodchucker <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/6/2013 5:20 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> Of course. There are none so blind as a true believer.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Linux is not the Linux of even a few years ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also completely irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>> <completely irrelevant chest thumping snipped>
>>>>>
>>>> Clearly, you've made up your mind to believe what you believe.
>>>
>>> Clearly you can neither read nor think.
>>>
>>>> Go, live in your own world.
>>>
>>> You really are a moron.
>>>
>>
>> You're off your meds again aren't you?
>> Damn, I'm going to have to call the looney bin again.
>
> You're a lefty, aren't you?
>
Irrelevant.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
On Fri, 6 Dec 2013 23:50:38 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 17:20:30 -0500, krw wrote:
>
>>>Clearly, you've made up your mind to believe what you believe.
>>
>> Clearly you can neither read nor think.
>>
>>>Go, live in your own world.
>>
>> You really are a moron.
>
>Are you through trolling yet?
Are you though evangelizing yet?
>Was your mother scared by a penguin?
Typical.
On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 22:17:39 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 12/05/2013 08:48 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 20:17:14 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/05/2013 08:11 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 19:59:31 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/05/2013 07:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 19:22:21 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/05/2013 07:08 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:58:52 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 12/05/2013 06:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:33:08 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/05/2013 05:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 23:36:36 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> j wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try disabling the plugins, they can be problematic in FF. Flash can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a crasher and Chrome handles those crashes better. Memory leaks?,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dunno for sure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm a web developer, so I have a wide variety of browsers, FireFox
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just doesn't seem to be the animal it used to be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately - that seems to be true. So, as a web developer, are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggesting Chrome over Firefox these days? It's not clear from your comment
>>>>>>>>>>>>> above. What a shame - Firefox used to be the relief from the Microsoft
>>>>>>>>>>>>> crap, and now seems to be more of the same.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd rather not jump out of Microsoft's bed into Google's[*]. I'll
>>>>>>>>>>>> stick with Firefox.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [*] Apple vs. Google (cell phones) isn't a lot of choice, IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Google bought the old Motorola cell phone division (Motorola Mobility)
>>>>>>>>>>> after Mot split into Motorola Mobility and Motorola Solutions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It also owns Android.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you're talking about Android phones, Android is Linux based.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not irrelevant if you're comparing M$ and Google phones.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course it is. It doesn't matter a whit where Android comes from,
>>>>>>>> it is *NOT* Linux. I wasn't really, but that part is apt, anyway.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Android interface is most certainly built on top of the linux
>>>>>>> kernel. There are may interfaces that run on top of the linux kernel,
>>>>>>> KDE, GNOME, XFCE,....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, good grief, another Linux junky. "The world is Linux!!!!"
>>>>>> <GMAFB!>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I noticed you didn't refute my statement.
>>>>
>>>> Why would I refute irrelevance. Your whole argument is.
>>>>
>>>>> As Jack Nicholson said in "A
>>>>> Few Good Men"... :-)
>>>> Idiot.
>>>>
>>>>> And yes, been using linux since 1995.
>>>>
>>>> Idiot.
>>>>
>>>>> And yes, the internet is run mostly on linux servers on all types of
>>>>> hardware from Pea Seas up to and including IBM mainframes, not to
>>>>> mention most infrastructure hardware.
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>>
>>> Ah, another M$ fan boi...
>>
>> Idiot. There are none so blind as the true believer.
>>
>Ain't *that* the truth!
IKWYABWAI is about your speed.
On 12/05/2013 07:08 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:58:52 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 12/05/2013 06:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:33:08 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/05/2013 05:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 23:36:36 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> j wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try disabling the plugins, they can be problematic in FF. Flash can
>>>>>>> be a crasher and Chrome handles those crashes better. Memory leaks?,
>>>>>>> dunno for sure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm a web developer, so I have a wide variety of browsers, FireFox
>>>>>>> just doesn't seem to be the animal it used to be.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately - that seems to be true. So, as a web developer, are you
>>>>>> suggesting Chrome over Firefox these days? It's not clear from your comment
>>>>>> above. What a shame - Firefox used to be the relief from the Microsoft
>>>>>> crap, and now seems to be more of the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd rather not jump out of Microsoft's bed into Google's[*]. I'll
>>>>> stick with Firefox.
>>>>>
>>>>> [*] Apple vs. Google (cell phones) isn't a lot of choice, IMO.
>>>>>
>>>> Google bought the old Motorola cell phone division (Motorola Mobility)
>>>> after Mot split into Motorola Mobility and Motorola Solutions.
>>>
>>> It also owns Android.
>>>
>>>> If you're talking about Android phones, Android is Linux based.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant.
>>>
>> Not irrelevant if you're comparing M$ and Google phones.
>
> Of course it is. It doesn't matter a whit where Android comes from,
> it is *NOT* Linux. I wasn't really, but that part is apt, anyway.
>
The Android interface is most certainly built on top of the linux
kernel. There are may interfaces that run on top of the linux kernel,
KDE, GNOME, XFCE,....
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 17:34:12 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 12/06/2013 05:22 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 19:03:01 -0500, woodchucker <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/6/2013 5:20 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> Of course. There are none so blind as a true believer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Linux is not the Linux of even a few years ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also completely irrelevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <completely irrelevant chest thumping snipped>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Clearly, you've made up your mind to believe what you believe.
>>>>
>>>> Clearly you can neither read nor think.
>>>>
>>>>> Go, live in your own world.
>>>>
>>>> You really are a moron.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're off your meds again aren't you?
>>> Damn, I'm going to have to call the looney bin again.
>>
>> You're a lefty, aren't you?
>>
>Irrelevant.
Ah, but insults are relevant. Got it. You *must* be a lefty.
On 12/06/2013 05:47 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 17:34:12 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 12/06/2013 05:22 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 19:03:01 -0500, woodchucker <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/6/2013 5:20 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> Of course. There are none so blind as a true believer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Linux is not the Linux of even a few years ago.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also completely irrelevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <completely irrelevant chest thumping snipped>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clearly, you've made up your mind to believe what you believe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clearly you can neither read nor think.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Go, live in your own world.
>>>>>
>>>>> You really are a moron.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're off your meds again aren't you?
>>>> Damn, I'm going to have to call the looney bin again.
>>>
>>> You're a lefty, aren't you?
>>>
>> Irrelevant.
>
> Ah, but insults are relevant. Got it. You *must* be a lefty.
>
Pay attention!
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
On 12/5/2013 4:45 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> RE: Subject
>
>
> Just out of curosity, what do other people use as their home
> page?
Google advanced search (or whatever your favorite search engine happens
to be). Remember that with Tbird you can sync your bookmarks, etc. and
stack links on the bookmarks menu - probably a better place for the HP link.
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en
On 12/05/2013 07:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 19:22:21 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 12/05/2013 07:08 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:58:52 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/05/2013 06:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:33:08 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/05/2013 05:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 23:36:36 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> j wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try disabling the plugins, they can be problematic in FF. Flash can
>>>>>>>>> be a crasher and Chrome handles those crashes better. Memory leaks?,
>>>>>>>>> dunno for sure.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm a web developer, so I have a wide variety of browsers, FireFox
>>>>>>>>> just doesn't seem to be the animal it used to be.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unfortunately - that seems to be true. So, as a web developer, are you
>>>>>>>> suggesting Chrome over Firefox these days? It's not clear from your comment
>>>>>>>> above. What a shame - Firefox used to be the relief from the Microsoft
>>>>>>>> crap, and now seems to be more of the same.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd rather not jump out of Microsoft's bed into Google's[*]. I'll
>>>>>>> stick with Firefox.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [*] Apple vs. Google (cell phones) isn't a lot of choice, IMO.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Google bought the old Motorola cell phone division (Motorola Mobility)
>>>>>> after Mot split into Motorola Mobility and Motorola Solutions.
>>>>>
>>>>> It also owns Android.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you're talking about Android phones, Android is Linux based.
>>>>>
>>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>> Not irrelevant if you're comparing M$ and Google phones.
>>>
>>> Of course it is. It doesn't matter a whit where Android comes from,
>>> it is *NOT* Linux. I wasn't really, but that part is apt, anyway.
>>>
>> The Android interface is most certainly built on top of the linux
>> kernel. There are may interfaces that run on top of the linux kernel,
>> KDE, GNOME, XFCE,....
>
> Oh, good grief, another Linux junky. "The world is Linux!!!!"
> <GMAFB!>
>
I noticed you didn't refute my statement. As Jack Nicholson said in "A
Few Good Men"... :-)
And yes, been using linux since 1995.
And yes, the internet is run mostly on linux servers on all types of
hardware from Pea Seas up to and including IBM mainframes, not to
mention most infrastructure hardware.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_adoption
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
On 12/5/2013 3:45 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> RE: Subject
>
> Thanks to all who responded.
>
> It appears the problem is with the home page I had chosen,
> Huffington Post, not updating rather than the browser, FireFox.
>
> Guess I shouldn't be surprised now that AOL owns HP.
>
> Just out of curosity, what do other people use as their home
> page?
>
>
dogpile.com
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> RE: Subject
>
> Thanks to all who responded.
>
> It appears the problem is with the home page I had chosen,
> Huffington Post, not updating rather than the browser, FireFox.
>
> Guess I shouldn't be surprised now that AOL owns HP.
>
> Just out of curosity, what do other people use as their home
> page?
>
>
> Lew
>
>
>
My home page is my bookmark page.
--
GW Ross
Make Headlines..use a corduroy
pillow....
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>>
>> Just out of curosity, what do other people use as their home
>> page?
>>
>
> Blank page. I prefer to go to sites the manual way.
So, you still hand crank that machine, or have you upgraded to kerosene?
;)
--
www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)
On 12/4/2013 6:47 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Looking for some guidance.
>
> Running FireFox on XP.
>
> Can minimize FireFox with no problem.
>
> When I restore from the minimize position after some period of time,
> usually an hour or so, get a complaint that FireFox is not responding.
>
> This requires that I close out FireFox, then reload and things are
> hunky-dory.
>
> Any ideas where to start to solve this problem?
>
> Lew
>
>
>
Have you got the latest updates? I just got a new update today. Mostly
I use Chrome which runs way faster than Firefox but I do have to use
Firefox on some web sites.
On 12/5/2013 4:45 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> RE: Subject
>
> Thanks to all who responded.
>
> It appears the problem is with the home page I had chosen,
> Huffington Post, not updating rather than the browser, FireFox.
>
> Guess I shouldn't be surprised now that AOL owns HP.
>
> Just out of curosity, what do other people use as their home
> page?
>
>
> Lew
>
>
>
www.festool.com
Did you really have to ask?
You might try
http://www.shell.us/
http://www.exxon.com/usa-english/gfm/
http://www.chevron.com/
;~)
On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 19:22:21 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 12/05/2013 07:08 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:58:52 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/05/2013 06:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:33:08 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/05/2013 05:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 23:36:36 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> j wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try disabling the plugins, they can be problematic in FF. Flash can
>>>>>>>> be a crasher and Chrome handles those crashes better. Memory leaks?,
>>>>>>>> dunno for sure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm a web developer, so I have a wide variety of browsers, FireFox
>>>>>>>> just doesn't seem to be the animal it used to be.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unfortunately - that seems to be true. So, as a web developer, are you
>>>>>>> suggesting Chrome over Firefox these days? It's not clear from your comment
>>>>>>> above. What a shame - Firefox used to be the relief from the Microsoft
>>>>>>> crap, and now seems to be more of the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd rather not jump out of Microsoft's bed into Google's[*]. I'll
>>>>>> stick with Firefox.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [*] Apple vs. Google (cell phones) isn't a lot of choice, IMO.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Google bought the old Motorola cell phone division (Motorola Mobility)
>>>>> after Mot split into Motorola Mobility and Motorola Solutions.
>>>>
>>>> It also owns Android.
>>>>
>>>>> If you're talking about Android phones, Android is Linux based.
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>>
>>> Not irrelevant if you're comparing M$ and Google phones.
>>
>> Of course it is. It doesn't matter a whit where Android comes from,
>> it is *NOT* Linux. I wasn't really, but that part is apt, anyway.
>>
>The Android interface is most certainly built on top of the linux
>kernel. There are may interfaces that run on top of the linux kernel,
>KDE, GNOME, XFCE,....
Oh, good grief, another Linux junky. "The world is Linux!!!!"
<GMAFB!>
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 21:47:38 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>>
>> Just out of curosity, what do other people use as their home
>> page?
>>
>
>Blank page. I prefer to go to sites the manual way.
I use the Astronomy Picture of the Day web site, though I rarely ever
see the home page. I never stop the browser and rarely reboot.
Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
> RE: Subject
>
> Thanks to all who responded.
>
> It appears the problem is with the home page I had chosen,
> Huffington Post, not updating rather than the browser,
> FireFox.
>
> Guess I shouldn't be surprised now that AOL owns HP.
>
> Just out of curosity, what do other people use as their
> home
> page?
>
>
> Lew
Like Karl said, see what them liberal sites will do to your
computer, imagine what they do to your brain <eg>
I use https://www.startpage.com/
On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:58:52 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 12/05/2013 06:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:33:08 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/05/2013 05:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 23:36:36 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> j wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try disabling the plugins, they can be problematic in FF. Flash can
>>>>>> be a crasher and Chrome handles those crashes better. Memory leaks?,
>>>>>> dunno for sure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm a web developer, so I have a wide variety of browsers, FireFox
>>>>>> just doesn't seem to be the animal it used to be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately - that seems to be true. So, as a web developer, are you
>>>>> suggesting Chrome over Firefox these days? It's not clear from your comment
>>>>> above. What a shame - Firefox used to be the relief from the Microsoft
>>>>> crap, and now seems to be more of the same.
>>>>
>>>> I'd rather not jump out of Microsoft's bed into Google's[*]. I'll
>>>> stick with Firefox.
>>>>
>>>> [*] Apple vs. Google (cell phones) isn't a lot of choice, IMO.
>>>>
>>> Google bought the old Motorola cell phone division (Motorola Mobility)
>>> after Mot split into Motorola Mobility and Motorola Solutions.
>>
>> It also owns Android.
>>
>>> If you're talking about Android phones, Android is Linux based.
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>>
>Not irrelevant if you're comparing M$ and Google phones.
Of course it is. It doesn't matter a whit where Android comes from,
it is *NOT* Linux. I wasn't really, but that part is apt, anyway.
Unquestionably Confused wrote:
> On 12/4/2013 6:47 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> Looking for some guidance.
>>
>> Running FireFox on XP.
>>
>> Can minimize FireFox with no problem.
>>
>> When I restore from the minimize position after some period of time,
>> usually an hour or so, get a complaint that FireFox is not responding.
>>
>> This requires that I close out FireFox, then reload and things are
>> hunky-dory.
>>
>> Any ideas where to start to solve this problem?
>
> Disable ALL add-ons and see if the problem persists.
>
> If it does, do a complete uninstall, hard reboot the computer and a
> complete reinstall of the latest version.
>
> See what happens and THEN begin adding your add-ons (if any) one by
> one, holding your breath each time to see if the symptoms come back.
>
>
>
I think there's a reasonable chance the problem could be related to
power management settings (in Windows, or in the BIOS (hardware)).
I have encountered the problem. I got to task manager
(<ctl>+<alt>+<del>), and close the offending application. That takes
care of it without restarting the computer (not sure if you were going
that route).
Bill
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Looking for some guidance.
>
> Running FireFox on XP.
>
> Can minimize FireFox with no problem.
>
> When I restore from the minimize position after some period of time,
> usually an hour or so, get a complaint that FireFox is not responding.
>
> This requires that I close out FireFox, then reload and things are
> hunky-dory.
>
> Any ideas where to start to solve this problem?
>
This may be a bug in Firefox Lew. I'm still running XP as well, and over
the past couple of months I've had several anomolies with Firefox - all of
which went away on their own after one of their updates. It seems they are
not testing their code very well before making releases these days.
I have not experienced the particular problem you are seeing, but that's not
really saying anything. I'd give it a couple of days and see if the problem
goes away (likely with an update from Mozilla).
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 12/4/2013 7:47 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Looking for some guidance.
>
> Running FireFox on XP.
>
> Can minimize FireFox with no problem.
>
> When I restore from the minimize position after some period of time,
> usually an hour or so, get a complaint that FireFox is not responding.
Perhaps a switch to Chrome? Chrome runs fine in XP.
Try disabling the plugins, they can be problematic in FF. Flash can be a
crasher and Chrome handles those crashes better. Memory leaks?, dunno
for sure.
I'm a web developer, so I have a wide variety of browsers, FireFox just
doesn't seem to be the animal it used to be.
Jeff
>
> This requires that I close out FireFox, then reload and things are
> hunky-dory.
>
> Any ideas where to start to solve this problem?
>
> Lew
>
>
>
On 12/05/2013 08:11 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 19:59:31 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 12/05/2013 07:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 19:22:21 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/05/2013 07:08 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:58:52 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/05/2013 06:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:33:08 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/05/2013 05:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 23:36:36 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> j wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Try disabling the plugins, they can be problematic in FF. Flash can
>>>>>>>>>>> be a crasher and Chrome handles those crashes better. Memory leaks?,
>>>>>>>>>>> dunno for sure.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm a web developer, so I have a wide variety of browsers, FireFox
>>>>>>>>>>> just doesn't seem to be the animal it used to be.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately - that seems to be true. So, as a web developer, are you
>>>>>>>>>> suggesting Chrome over Firefox these days? It's not clear from your comment
>>>>>>>>>> above. What a shame - Firefox used to be the relief from the Microsoft
>>>>>>>>>> crap, and now seems to be more of the same.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd rather not jump out of Microsoft's bed into Google's[*]. I'll
>>>>>>>>> stick with Firefox.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [*] Apple vs. Google (cell phones) isn't a lot of choice, IMO.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Google bought the old Motorola cell phone division (Motorola Mobility)
>>>>>>>> after Mot split into Motorola Mobility and Motorola Solutions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It also owns Android.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you're talking about Android phones, Android is Linux based.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not irrelevant if you're comparing M$ and Google phones.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course it is. It doesn't matter a whit where Android comes from,
>>>>> it is *NOT* Linux. I wasn't really, but that part is apt, anyway.
>>>>>
>>>> The Android interface is most certainly built on top of the linux
>>>> kernel. There are may interfaces that run on top of the linux kernel,
>>>> KDE, GNOME, XFCE,....
>>>
>>> Oh, good grief, another Linux junky. "The world is Linux!!!!"
>>> <GMAFB!>
>>>
>> I noticed you didn't refute my statement.
>
> Why would I refute irrelevance. Your whole argument is.
>
>> As Jack Nicholson said in "A
>> Few Good Men"... :-)
> Idiot.
>
>> And yes, been using linux since 1995.
>
> Idiot.
>
>> And yes, the internet is run mostly on linux servers on all types of
>> hardware from Pea Seas up to and including IBM mainframes, not to
>> mention most infrastructure hardware.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
Ah, another M$ fan boi...
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 01:49:37 -0500, j <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 12/5/2013 9:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 19:22:21 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/05/2013 07:08 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:58:52 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/05/2013 06:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:33:08 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/05/2013 05:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 23:36:36 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> j wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Try disabling the plugins, they can be problematic in FF. Flash can
>>>>>>>>>> be a crasher and Chrome handles those crashes better. Memory leaks?,
>>>>>>>>>> dunno for sure.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm a web developer, so I have a wide variety of browsers, FireFox
>>>>>>>>>> just doesn't seem to be the animal it used to be.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately - that seems to be true. So, as a web developer, are you
>>>>>>>>> suggesting Chrome over Firefox these days? It's not clear from your comment
>>>>>>>>> above. What a shame - Firefox used to be the relief from the Microsoft
>>>>>>>>> crap, and now seems to be more of the same.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd rather not jump out of Microsoft's bed into Google's[*]. I'll
>>>>>>>> stick with Firefox.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [*] Apple vs. Google (cell phones) isn't a lot of choice, IMO.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Google bought the old Motorola cell phone division (Motorola Mobility)
>>>>>>> after Mot split into Motorola Mobility and Motorola Solutions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It also owns Android.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you're talking about Android phones, Android is Linux based.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not irrelevant if you're comparing M$ and Google phones.
>>>>
>>>> Of course it is. It doesn't matter a whit where Android comes from,
>>>> it is *NOT* Linux. I wasn't really, but that part is apt, anyway.
>>>>
>>> The Android interface is most certainly built on top of the linux
>>> kernel. There are may interfaces that run on top of the linux kernel,
>>> KDE, GNOME, XFCE,....
>>
>> Oh, good grief, another Linux junky. "The world is Linux!!!!"
>> <GMAFB!>
>>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)
>
>"Android is an operating system based on the Linux kernel,"
Irrelevant. Can you run Linux apps, unchanged, on your cell phone?
>For that matter the Mac OS X is *nix based
Which doesn't make it Linux, either.
>Each OS has it's place. But the world is trending away from windows on
>the mobile. Windows is a hog, with way too much that never should have
>been in the kernel. In mobile devices power consumption is key and *nix
>devices are way ahead in that as well as being leaner.
So what? I don't care for Windows but I really have no choice. That
was the whole point! <sheesh>
On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 19:59:31 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 12/05/2013 07:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 19:22:21 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/05/2013 07:08 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:58:52 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/05/2013 06:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:33:08 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/05/2013 05:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 23:36:36 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> j wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Try disabling the plugins, they can be problematic in FF. Flash can
>>>>>>>>>> be a crasher and Chrome handles those crashes better. Memory leaks?,
>>>>>>>>>> dunno for sure.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm a web developer, so I have a wide variety of browsers, FireFox
>>>>>>>>>> just doesn't seem to be the animal it used to be.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately - that seems to be true. So, as a web developer, are you
>>>>>>>>> suggesting Chrome over Firefox these days? It's not clear from your comment
>>>>>>>>> above. What a shame - Firefox used to be the relief from the Microsoft
>>>>>>>>> crap, and now seems to be more of the same.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd rather not jump out of Microsoft's bed into Google's[*]. I'll
>>>>>>>> stick with Firefox.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [*] Apple vs. Google (cell phones) isn't a lot of choice, IMO.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Google bought the old Motorola cell phone division (Motorola Mobility)
>>>>>>> after Mot split into Motorola Mobility and Motorola Solutions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It also owns Android.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you're talking about Android phones, Android is Linux based.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not irrelevant if you're comparing M$ and Google phones.
>>>>
>>>> Of course it is. It doesn't matter a whit where Android comes from,
>>>> it is *NOT* Linux. I wasn't really, but that part is apt, anyway.
>>>>
>>> The Android interface is most certainly built on top of the linux
>>> kernel. There are may interfaces that run on top of the linux kernel,
>>> KDE, GNOME, XFCE,....
>>
>> Oh, good grief, another Linux junky. "The world is Linux!!!!"
>> <GMAFB!>
>>
>I noticed you didn't refute my statement.
Why would I refute irrelevance. Your whole argument is.
> As Jack Nicholson said in "A
>Few Good Men"... :-)
Idiot.
>And yes, been using linux since 1995.
Idiot.
>And yes, the internet is run mostly on linux servers on all types of
>hardware from Pea Seas up to and including IBM mainframes, not to
>mention most infrastructure hardware.
Irrelevant.
On 12/6/2013 8:29 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 01:49:37 -0500, j <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 12/5/2013 9:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 19:22:21 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/05/2013 07:08 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:58:52 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/05/2013 06:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:33:08 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/05/2013 05:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 23:36:36 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> j wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Try disabling the plugins, they can be problematic in FF. Flash can
>>>>>>>>>>> be a crasher and Chrome handles those crashes better. Memory leaks?,
>>>>>>>>>>> dunno for sure.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm a web developer, so I have a wide variety of browsers, FireFox
>>>>>>>>>>> just doesn't seem to be the animal it used to be.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately - that seems to be true. So, as a web developer, are you
>>>>>>>>>> suggesting Chrome over Firefox these days? It's not clear from your comment
>>>>>>>>>> above. What a shame - Firefox used to be the relief from the Microsoft
>>>>>>>>>> crap, and now seems to be more of the same.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd rather not jump out of Microsoft's bed into Google's[*]. I'll
>>>>>>>>> stick with Firefox.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [*] Apple vs. Google (cell phones) isn't a lot of choice, IMO.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Google bought the old Motorola cell phone division (Motorola Mobility)
>>>>>>>> after Mot split into Motorola Mobility and Motorola Solutions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It also owns Android.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you're talking about Android phones, Android is Linux based.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not irrelevant if you're comparing M$ and Google phones.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course it is. It doesn't matter a whit where Android comes from,
>>>>> it is *NOT* Linux. I wasn't really, but that part is apt, anyway.
>>>>>
>>>> The Android interface is most certainly built on top of the linux
>>>> kernel. There are may interfaces that run on top of the linux kernel,
>>>> KDE, GNOME, XFCE,....
>>>
>>> Oh, good grief, another Linux junky. "The world is Linux!!!!"
>>> <GMAFB!>
>>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)
>>
>> "Android is an operating system based on the Linux kernel,"
>
> Irrelevant. Can you run Linux apps, unchanged, on your cell phone?
>
>> For that matter the Mac OS X is *nix based
>
> Which doesn't make it Linux, either.
>
>> Each OS has it's place. But the world is trending away from windows on
>> the mobile. Windows is a hog, with way too much that never should have
>> been in the kernel. In mobile devices power consumption is key and *nix
>> devices are way ahead in that as well as being leaner.
>
> So what? I don't care for Windows but I really have no choice. That
> was the whole point! <sheesh>
I haven't been following this whole thread, so whatever your point was,
was missed.
Linux is not the Linux of even a few years ago.
Linux desktop and driver support has gotten quite good. It installs
easier than windows and can run Open Office, which is arguably a great,
and free competitor to Office. Open Office reads all MS types. I have on
occasion used it to open a new MS file type that my 2007 Office didn't
like. Applications, not apps, install easily and seamlessly over the
internet.
Ports of various Linux distros are available for many devices that run
Android. It some cases this can be as simple as booting from a memory card.
You can even run a version of Linux, and the Applications, on a $30
device like the Raspberry Pi.
And, you can even run Linux on your Windows desktop as a program. Just a
download, click, and install, and run it out of Windows.
So, perhaps not on *your* phone. But possible on your tablet. If it has
the roots of a Linux kernel, the device can most likely run a Linux
distro easily. Note that the MS Surface RT is not Windows.
You probably have no need to run Linux, but the foundation it has laid
is powering most of mobile, most of the internet, and has possibilities
that Windows just can't do.
Sheesh indeed.
Jeff
>
On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 08:29:57 -0500, krw wrote:
>>"Android is an operating system based on the Linux kernel,"
>
> Irrelevant. Can you run Linux apps, unchanged, on your cell phone?
Yes. See:
http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/ubuntu-for-android
>
>>For that matter the Mac OS X is *nix based
>
> Which doesn't make it Linux, either.
>
Makes it a heck of a lot closer than Windows.
>
> So what? I don't care for Windows but I really have no choice. That
> was the whole point! <sheesh>
Unless you're talking about an employer forcing you to use Windows at
work, you've got lots of choices. Several flavors of Linux, OS X, at
least two flavors of Unix, and probably one or two oddballs I've
forgotten.
BTW, Linux Mint was designed specifically for Windows users, not computer
nerds. Try it for free.
There is one caveat on Linux. I have not yet found a free CAD for Linux
that I like. And I don't need one often enough to spring for one of the
commercial ones. So on the rare occasion that I need CAD, I reboot into
XP (with networking disabled) and run TurboCad. If my use increases one
of these days I'll get it running under Wine or VirtualBox so I don't
have to reboot.
--
This message was for rec.woodworking - if it appears in homeownershub
they ripped it off.
On 12/5/2013 10:11 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 19:59:31 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
t.
>
>> And yes, been using linux since 1995.
>
> Idiot.
Wow, what's up your ass about Linux?
Linux is a fully capable O/S... many servers SUN/HP/IBM are now on LINUX
vs their own version of software. Linux does not crash like MS.
it's not hacked as regularly.
If you prefer Mac or Windoze that's your thing.
I use Win7 and Linux, and don't have a problem with it.
But IDIOT??? no, he's probably smarter than most, being a user since 95
when it really had to be manually configured , shows that he is not an
IDIOT...
>
>> And yes, the internet is run mostly on linux servers on all types of
>> hardware from Pea Seas up to and including IBM mainframes, not to
>> mention most infrastructure hardware.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
--
Jeff
On 12/6/2013 8:29 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> "Android is an operating system based on the Linux kernel,"
>
> Irrelevant. Can you run Linux apps, unchanged, on your cell phone?
>
>> For that matter the Mac OS X is *nix based
>
> Which doesn't make it Linux, either.
>
>> Each OS has it's place. But the world is trending away from windows on
>> the mobile. Windows is a hog, with way too much that never should have
>> been in the kernel. In mobile devices power consumption is key and *nix
>> devices are way ahead in that as well as being leaner.
>
> So what? I don't care for Windows but I really have no choice. That
> was the whole point! <sheesh>
>
Really, why not?
You can easily use either a mac or linux.
there's very little these days that isn't browser based or java based.
So many apps run on all platforms.
--
Jeff
j wrote:
>
> Try disabling the plugins, they can be problematic in FF. Flash can
> be a crasher and Chrome handles those crashes better. Memory leaks?,
> dunno for sure.
>
> I'm a web developer, so I have a wide variety of browsers, FireFox
> just doesn't seem to be the animal it used to be.
>
Unfortunately - that seems to be true. So, as a web developer, are you
suggesting Chrome over Firefox these days? It's not clear from your comment
above. What a shame - Firefox used to be the relief from the Microsoft
crap, and now seems to be more of the same.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 12/6/2013 3:12 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 12/6/2013 1:42 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2013 17:48:49 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 08:29:57 -0500, krw wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "Android is an operating system based on the Linux kernel,"
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant. Can you run Linux apps, unchanged, on your cell phone?
>>>
>>> Yes. See:
>>>
>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/ubuntu-for-android
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> For that matter the Mac OS X is *nix based
>>>>
>>>> Which doesn't make it Linux, either.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Makes it a heck of a lot closer than Windows.
>>
>> Good Lord! Another true believer flushed out!
>>
>> <...>
>>
>
>
> This Linux software, it that for those that can't figure Windows out?
>
Linux is a GUI-based version of UNIX, which has been around longer than
Windows. Main advantages are (1) it's free, and (b) it's not Microsoft.
On 12/06/2013 03:12 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 12/6/2013 1:42 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2013 17:48:49 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 08:29:57 -0500, krw wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "Android is an operating system based on the Linux kernel,"
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant. Can you run Linux apps, unchanged, on your cell phone?
>>>
>>> Yes. See:
>>>
>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/ubuntu-for-android
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> For that matter the Mac OS X is *nix based
>>>>
>>>> Which doesn't make it Linux, either.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Makes it a heck of a lot closer than Windows.
>>
>> Good Lord! Another true believer flushed out!
>>
>> <...>
>>
>
>
> This Linux software, it that for those that can't figure Windows out?
>
> ;~) Duck'n n run'n
No, it's for those who don't mind trying out something different - kind
of like sketchup ;-)
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
On 12/06/2013 03:12 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 12/6/2013 1:42 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2013 17:48:49 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 08:29:57 -0500, krw wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "Android is an operating system based on the Linux kernel,"
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant. Can you run Linux apps, unchanged, on your cell phone?
>>>
>>> Yes. See:
>>>
>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/ubuntu-for-android
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> For that matter the Mac OS X is *nix based
>>>>
>>>> Which doesn't make it Linux, either.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Makes it a heck of a lot closer than Windows.
>>
>> Good Lord! Another true believer flushed out!
>>
>> <...>
>>
>
>
> This Linux software, it that for those that can't figure Windows out?
>
> ;~) Duck'n n run'n
I do keep an old XP box on the network for a couple of Windows apps -
tax software and sketchup. Since the XP box is headless, I access it
via VNC.
Everything else I need has choices of alternative apps for linux or on
my Android tablet.
No more rebooting every few days, no strange freezes, no more having to
buy new hardware (including software) at every major OS release, ...
I build my systems from barebones hardware so as to avoid the built-in
price of Windows and to get exactly the hardware I want.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
On 12/6/2013 1:42 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Dec 2013 17:48:49 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 08:29:57 -0500, krw wrote:
>>
>>>> "Android is an operating system based on the Linux kernel,"
>>>
>>> Irrelevant. Can you run Linux apps, unchanged, on your cell phone?
>>
>> Yes. See:
>>
>> http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/ubuntu-for-android
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> For that matter the Mac OS X is *nix based
>>>
>>> Which doesn't make it Linux, either.
>>>
>>
>> Makes it a heck of a lot closer than Windows.
>
> Good Lord! Another true believer flushed out!
>
> <...>
>
This Linux software, it that for those that can't figure Windows out?
;~) Duck'n n run'n
On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 11:49:57 -0500, j <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 12/6/2013 8:29 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 01:49:37 -0500, j <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/5/2013 9:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 19:22:21 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/05/2013 07:08 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:58:52 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/05/2013 06:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:33:08 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 12/05/2013 05:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 23:36:36 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> j wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Try disabling the plugins, they can be problematic in FF. Flash can
>>>>>>>>>>>> be a crasher and Chrome handles those crashes better. Memory leaks?,
>>>>>>>>>>>> dunno for sure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm a web developer, so I have a wide variety of browsers, FireFox
>>>>>>>>>>>> just doesn't seem to be the animal it used to be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately - that seems to be true. So, as a web developer, are you
>>>>>>>>>>> suggesting Chrome over Firefox these days? It's not clear from your comment
>>>>>>>>>>> above. What a shame - Firefox used to be the relief from the Microsoft
>>>>>>>>>>> crap, and now seems to be more of the same.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd rather not jump out of Microsoft's bed into Google's[*]. I'll
>>>>>>>>>> stick with Firefox.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [*] Apple vs. Google (cell phones) isn't a lot of choice, IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Google bought the old Motorola cell phone division (Motorola Mobility)
>>>>>>>>> after Mot split into Motorola Mobility and Motorola Solutions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It also owns Android.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you're talking about Android phones, Android is Linux based.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not irrelevant if you're comparing M$ and Google phones.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course it is. It doesn't matter a whit where Android comes from,
>>>>>> it is *NOT* Linux. I wasn't really, but that part is apt, anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The Android interface is most certainly built on top of the linux
>>>>> kernel. There are may interfaces that run on top of the linux kernel,
>>>>> KDE, GNOME, XFCE,....
>>>>
>>>> Oh, good grief, another Linux junky. "The world is Linux!!!!"
>>>> <GMAFB!>
>>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)
>>>
>>> "Android is an operating system based on the Linux kernel,"
>>
>> Irrelevant. Can you run Linux apps, unchanged, on your cell phone?
>>
>>> For that matter the Mac OS X is *nix based
>>
>> Which doesn't make it Linux, either.
>>
>>> Each OS has it's place. But the world is trending away from windows on
>>> the mobile. Windows is a hog, with way too much that never should have
>>> been in the kernel. In mobile devices power consumption is key and *nix
>>> devices are way ahead in that as well as being leaner.
>>
>> So what? I don't care for Windows but I really have no choice. That
>> was the whole point! <sheesh>
>
>I haven't been following this whole thread, so whatever your point was,
>was missed.
Of course. There are none so blind as a true believer.
>Linux is not the Linux of even a few years ago.
Also completely irrelevant.
<completely irrelevant chest thumping snipped>
On Fri, 6 Dec 2013 17:48:49 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 08:29:57 -0500, krw wrote:
>
>>>"Android is an operating system based on the Linux kernel,"
>>
>> Irrelevant. Can you run Linux apps, unchanged, on your cell phone?
>
>Yes. See:
>
>http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/ubuntu-for-android
>
>
>>
>>>For that matter the Mac OS X is *nix based
>>
>> Which doesn't make it Linux, either.
>>
>
>Makes it a heck of a lot closer than Windows.
Good Lord! Another true believer flushed out!
<...>
On 12/6/2013 2:41 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 11:49:57 -0500, j <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 12/6/2013 8:29 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 01:49:37 -0500, j <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/5/2013 9:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 19:22:21 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/05/2013 07:08 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:58:52 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/05/2013 06:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:33:08 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/05/2013 05:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 23:36:36 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> j wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try disabling the plugins, they can be problematic in FF. Flash can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a crasher and Chrome handles those crashes better. Memory leaks?,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dunno for sure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm a web developer, so I have a wide variety of browsers, FireFox
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just doesn't seem to be the animal it used to be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately - that seems to be true. So, as a web developer, are you
>>>>>>>>>>>> suggesting Chrome over Firefox these days? It's not clear from your comment
>>>>>>>>>>>> above. What a shame - Firefox used to be the relief from the Microsoft
>>>>>>>>>>>> crap, and now seems to be more of the same.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd rather not jump out of Microsoft's bed into Google's[*]. I'll
>>>>>>>>>>> stick with Firefox.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [*] Apple vs. Google (cell phones) isn't a lot of choice, IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Google bought the old Motorola cell phone division (Motorola Mobility)
>>>>>>>>>> after Mot split into Motorola Mobility and Motorola Solutions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It also owns Android.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you're talking about Android phones, Android is Linux based.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not irrelevant if you're comparing M$ and Google phones.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course it is. It doesn't matter a whit where Android comes from,
>>>>>>> it is *NOT* Linux. I wasn't really, but that part is apt, anyway.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Android interface is most certainly built on top of the linux
>>>>>> kernel. There are may interfaces that run on top of the linux kernel,
>>>>>> KDE, GNOME, XFCE,....
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, good grief, another Linux junky. "The world is Linux!!!!"
>>>>> <GMAFB!>
>>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)
>>>>
>>>> "Android is an operating system based on the Linux kernel,"
>>>
>>> Irrelevant. Can you run Linux apps, unchanged, on your cell phone?
>>>
>>>> For that matter the Mac OS X is *nix based
>>>
>>> Which doesn't make it Linux, either.
>>>
>>>> Each OS has it's place. But the world is trending away from windows on
>>>> the mobile. Windows is a hog, with way too much that never should have
>>>> been in the kernel. In mobile devices power consumption is key and *nix
>>>> devices are way ahead in that as well as being leaner.
>>>
>>> So what? I don't care for Windows but I really have no choice. That
>>> was the whole point! <sheesh>
>>
>> I haven't been following this whole thread, so whatever your point was,
>> was missed.
>
> Of course. There are none so blind as a true believer.
>
>> Linux is not the Linux of even a few years ago.
>
> Also completely irrelevant.
>
> <completely irrelevant chest thumping snipped>
>
Clearly, you've made up your mind to believe what you believe.
Go, live in your own world.
Jeff
On 12/4/2013 11:36 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> j wrote:
>
>>
>> Try disabling the plugins, they can be problematic in FF. Flash can
>> be a crasher and Chrome handles those crashes better. Memory leaks?,
>> dunno for sure.
>>
>> I'm a web developer, so I have a wide variety of browsers, FireFox
>> just doesn't seem to be the animal it used to be.
>>
>
> Unfortunately - that seems to be true. So, as a web developer, are you
> suggesting Chrome over Firefox these days?
As a user, yes.
But from a web development standpoint FireFox is fine. So is Chrome, so
is Opera. So is almost everything else. The problem is always IE, which
is always late to support standards. IE9 and up are more or less OK, but
most IE users are stuck on earlier versions.
It's not clear from your comment
> above. What a shame - Firefox used to be the relief from the Microsoft
> crap, and now seems to be more of the same.
Yes. It is a shame.
I hate IE. I hate MS.
Jeff
>
"Lew Hodgett" <
> wrote in message RE: Subject
>
> Thanks to all who responded.
>
> It appears the problem is with the home page I
> had chosen,
> Huffington Post, not updating rather than the
> browser, FireFox.
>
> Guess I shouldn't be surprised now that AOL owns
> HP.
>
> Just out of curosity, what do other people use
> as their home
> page?
>
>
> Lew
Home page? Blank...
G. Ross wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> RE: Subject
>>
>> Thanks to all who responded.
>>
>> It appears the problem is with the home page I had chosen,
>> Huffington Post, not updating rather than the browser, FireFox.
>>
>> Guess I shouldn't be surprised now that AOL owns HP.
>>
>> Just out of curosity, what do other people use as their home
>> page?
>>
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
>>
> My home page is my bookmark page.
>
Mine was Yahoo.com until I was increasingly bombarded with obnoxious
ads, and the frequency of such ads in similar places still appears to
be on the increase.
On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 14:45:56 -0800, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Just out of curosity, what do other people use as their home page?
Mostly, I use Google - if I leave a browser up at all. Firefox tends to
gradually accumulate memory so I kill it every now and then to clean up
the garbage. Then I don't restart it till I need to browse.
Of course, I'm also the guy who disables networking in the evening when
I'm through for the day - even though I'm not running Windoze. Just mark
me as paranoid.
--
This message was for rec.woodworking - if it appears in homeownershub
they ripped it off.
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Bill" wrote:
>
>> Mine was Yahoo.com until I was increasingly bombarded with obnoxious
>> ads, and the frequency of such ads in similar places still appears
>> to be on the increase.
> ----------------------------------------------------
> So what are you using instead of yahoo.com?
google.com, but it's a matter of "avoidance", rather than because I like
the google.com page so much.
Maybe someone can propose one that is interesting and also not obnoxious.
>
> Lew
>
>
On 12/5/2013 8:33 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
> On 12/05/2013 05:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 23:36:36 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> j wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Try disabling the plugins, they can be problematic in FF. Flash can
>>>> be a crasher and Chrome handles those crashes better. Memory leaks?,
>>>> dunno for sure.
>>>>
>>>> I'm a web developer, so I have a wide variety of browsers, FireFox
>>>> just doesn't seem to be the animal it used to be.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately - that seems to be true. So, as a web developer, are you
>>> suggesting Chrome over Firefox these days? It's not clear from your
>>> comment
>>> above. What a shame - Firefox used to be the relief from the Microsoft
>>> crap, and now seems to be more of the same.
>>
>> I'd rather not jump out of Microsoft's bed into Google's[*]. I'll
>> stick with Firefox.
>>
>> [*] Apple vs. Google (cell phones) isn't a lot of choice, IMO.
>>
> Google bought the old Motorola cell phone division (Motorola Mobility)
> after Mot split into Motorola Mobility and Motorola Solutions.
>
> If you're talking about Android phones, Android is Linux based.
>
>
I use the main search page on Google for my opening page in Firefox.
I use Google as my main search engine. So when I open Firefox, it is
ready for a search.
I export my wife's book marks and she use that for her home page.
I have found that overloaded sent box, delete box, in box, and other storage
area's have created issues for me.
When I dump everything, it works fine.
just me.
john
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Looking for some guidance.
Running FireFox on XP.
Can minimize FireFox with no problem.
When I restore from the minimize position after some period of time,
usually an hour or so, get a complaint that FireFox is not responding.
This requires that I close out FireFox, then reload and things are
hunky-dory.
Any ideas where to start to solve this problem?
Lew
Especially getting rid of messages that you have read....
john
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Looking for some guidance.
Running FireFox on XP.
Can minimize FireFox with no problem.
When I restore from the minimize position after some period of time,
usually an hour or so, get a complaint that FireFox is not responding.
This requires that I close out FireFox, then reload and things are
hunky-dory.
Any ideas where to start to solve this problem?
Lew
Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
> Just out of curosity, what do other people use as their home
> page?
>
Blank page. I prefer to go to sites the manual way.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 12/5/2013 9:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 19:22:21 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 12/05/2013 07:08 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:58:52 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/05/2013 06:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:33:08 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/05/2013 05:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 23:36:36 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> j wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try disabling the plugins, they can be problematic in FF. Flash can
>>>>>>>>> be a crasher and Chrome handles those crashes better. Memory leaks?,
>>>>>>>>> dunno for sure.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm a web developer, so I have a wide variety of browsers, FireFox
>>>>>>>>> just doesn't seem to be the animal it used to be.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unfortunately - that seems to be true. So, as a web developer, are you
>>>>>>>> suggesting Chrome over Firefox these days? It's not clear from your comment
>>>>>>>> above. What a shame - Firefox used to be the relief from the Microsoft
>>>>>>>> crap, and now seems to be more of the same.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd rather not jump out of Microsoft's bed into Google's[*]. I'll
>>>>>>> stick with Firefox.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [*] Apple vs. Google (cell phones) isn't a lot of choice, IMO.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Google bought the old Motorola cell phone division (Motorola Mobility)
>>>>>> after Mot split into Motorola Mobility and Motorola Solutions.
>>>>>
>>>>> It also owns Android.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you're talking about Android phones, Android is Linux based.
>>>>>
>>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>> Not irrelevant if you're comparing M$ and Google phones.
>>>
>>> Of course it is. It doesn't matter a whit where Android comes from,
>>> it is *NOT* Linux. I wasn't really, but that part is apt, anyway.
>>>
>> The Android interface is most certainly built on top of the linux
>> kernel. There are may interfaces that run on top of the linux kernel,
>> KDE, GNOME, XFCE,....
>
> Oh, good grief, another Linux junky. "The world is Linux!!!!"
> <GMAFB!>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)
"Android is an operating system based on the Linux kernel,"
For that matter the Mac OS X is *nix based
Each OS has it's place. But the world is trending away from windows on
the mobile. Windows is a hog, with way too much that never should have
been in the kernel. In mobile devices power consumption is key and *nix
devices are way ahead in that as well as being leaner.
On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 18:06:33 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 12/06/2013 05:47 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 17:34:12 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/06/2013 05:22 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 19:03:01 -0500, woodchucker <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/6/2013 5:20 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>> Of course. There are none so blind as a true believer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Linux is not the Linux of even a few years ago.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also completely irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <completely irrelevant chest thumping snipped>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Clearly, you've made up your mind to believe what you believe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clearly you can neither read nor think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Go, live in your own world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You really are a moron.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You're off your meds again aren't you?
>>>>> Damn, I'm going to have to call the looney bin again.
>>>>
>>>> You're a lefty, aren't you?
>>>>
>>> Irrelevant.
>>
>> Ah, but insults are relevant. Got it. You *must* be a lefty.
>>
>Pay attention!
Yep. A lefty.
Swingman wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Just out of curosity, what do other people use as their home
>>> page?
>>>
>>
>> Blank page. I prefer to go to sites the manual way.
>
> So, you still hand crank that machine, or have you upgraded to
> kerosene?
>
It's a laptop - no place for a crank. I have to use it by the french doors
so the solor panel gets enough light. See - I am high tech!
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> RE: Subject
>
> Thanks to all who responded.
>
> It appears the problem is with the home page I had chosen,
> Huffington Post, not updating rather than the browser,
> FireFox.
> Guess I shouldn't be surprised now that AOL owns HP.
>
> Just out of curosity, what do other people use as their
> home page?
Google. I don't browse particuar pages, just go to find info on something.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net
Bill wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "Bill" wrote:
>>
>>> Mine was Yahoo.com until I was increasingly bombarded with obnoxious
>>> ads, and the frequency of such ads in similar places still appears
>>> to be on the increase.
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>> So what are you using instead of yahoo.com?
>
> google.com, but it's a matter of "avoidance", rather than because I
> like the google.com page so much.
>
Lew,
So, I've used Google instead of Yahoo as a homepage for a little over a
month. I still browse over to Yahoo, occasionally, but it's by choice.
So, I have less "wasted" time.
I have also not renewed some magazine subscriptions in favor of trying
to read books instead and sawing more wood.
I'm not complaining though--just adapting.
Bill
>
>
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
>
On 1/9/2014 3:54 AM, Bill wrote:
> So, I've used Google instead of Yahoo as a homepage for a little over a
> month.
When you say your are using Google instead of Yahoo for a homepage, Are
you using Google.com which brings up the primary search screen. ie
Google and the Google title animation?
The reason I ask Google.com and Yahoo.com are not equivalent in content.
Yahoo.com brings up a news page.
I use Google.com for a home page as as a new page opens to the search
engine and loads faster as it does not have all of the pictures, text,
and animations.
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 07:56:56 -0500, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> When you say your are using Google instead of Yahoo for a homepage, Are
> you using Google.com which brings up the primary search screen. ie
> Google and the Google title animation?
Don't know about Bill,but that's what I do - and have been for years.
Sometimes even that seems to generate amounts of CPU usage even when on
an inactive workspace (Linux). I've gotten in the habit of taking my
computer off line overnight and whenever I know it'll be idle for some
time.
--
This msg is for rec.woodworking - not homeowners hub.
Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 1/9/2014 3:54 AM, Bill wrote:
>> So, I've used Google instead of Yahoo as a homepage for a little over a
>> month.
>
> When you say your are using Google instead of Yahoo for a homepage,
> Are you using Google.com which brings up the primary search screen. ie
> Google and the Google title animation?
Yes.
>
> The reason I ask Google.com and Yahoo.com are not equivalent in
> content. Yahoo.com brings up a news page.
Yes. One faces distraction from the start (that's was my point). The
Google "Animation" is not too distracting! ; )
Bill
>
> I use Google.com for a home page as as a new page opens to the search
> engine and loads faster as it does not have all of the pictures, text,
> and animations.
>
On 1/9/2014 3:48 PM, Bill wrote:
> Keith Nuttle wrote:
>> On 1/9/2014 3:54 AM, Bill wrote:
>>> So, I've used Google instead of Yahoo as a homepage for a little over a
>>> month.
>>
>> When you say your are using Google instead of Yahoo for a homepage,
>> Are you using Google.com which brings up the primary search screen. ie
>> Google and the Google title animation?
>
> Yes.
>>
>> The reason I ask Google.com and Yahoo.com are not equivalent in
>> content. Yahoo.com brings up a news page.
>
> Yes. One faces distraction from the start (that's was my point). The
> Google "Animation" is not too distracting! ; )
>
> Bill
>
>>
>> I use Google.com for a home page as as a new page opens to the search
>> engine and loads faster as it does not have all of the pictures, text,
>> and animations.
>>
>
Personally I like the Google annimations. Some are very creative and
they remind me of things I should remember.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 07:56:56 -0500, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>
>> When you say your are using Google instead of Yahoo for a homepage,
>> Are you using Google.com which brings up the primary search screen.
>> ie Google and the Google title animation?
>
> Don't know about Bill,but that's what I do - and have been for years.
> Sometimes even that seems to generate amounts of CPU usage even when
> on an inactive workspace (Linux). I've gotten in the habit of taking
> my computer off line overnight and whenever I know it'll be idle for
> some time.
That's interesting - may I ask why you go to the bother of doing that?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 1/9/2014 3:54 AM, Bill wrote:
>> So, I've used Google instead of Yahoo as a homepage for a little
>> over a month.
>
> When you say your are using Google instead of Yahoo for a homepage,
> Are you using Google.com which brings up the primary search screen. ie
> Google and the Google title animation?
>
> The reason I ask Google.com and Yahoo.com are not equivalent in
> content. Yahoo.com brings up a news page.
>
> I use Google.com for a home page as as a new page opens to the search
> engine and loads faster as it does not have all of the pictures, text,
> and animations.
I just use a blank page - no loading time. From there, I decide where I
want to go. Maybe google, maybe some web site, whatever. Either way, I am
not going to some (google) web site that I really do not care about.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:43:08 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:
> I've gotten in the habit of taking my
>> computer off line overnight and whenever I know it'll be idle for some
>> time.
>
> That's interesting - may I ask why you go to the bother of doing that?
Well, it's not a big deal - one click. And then I know nobody can break
in.
--
This msg is for rec.woodworking - not homeowners hub.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:43:08 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>> I've gotten in the habit of taking my
>>> computer off line overnight and whenever I know it'll be idle for
>>> some time.
>>
>> That's interesting - may I ask why you go to the bother of doing
>> that?
>
> Well, it's not a big deal - one click. And then I know nobody can
> break in.
Ok - was just curious.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:33:08 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 12/05/2013 05:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 23:36:36 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> j wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Try disabling the plugins, they can be problematic in FF. Flash can
>>>> be a crasher and Chrome handles those crashes better. Memory leaks?,
>>>> dunno for sure.
>>>>
>>>> I'm a web developer, so I have a wide variety of browsers, FireFox
>>>> just doesn't seem to be the animal it used to be.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately - that seems to be true. So, as a web developer, are you
>>> suggesting Chrome over Firefox these days? It's not clear from your comment
>>> above. What a shame - Firefox used to be the relief from the Microsoft
>>> crap, and now seems to be more of the same.
>>
>> I'd rather not jump out of Microsoft's bed into Google's[*]. I'll
>> stick with Firefox.
>>
>> [*] Apple vs. Google (cell phones) isn't a lot of choice, IMO.
>>
>Google bought the old Motorola cell phone division (Motorola Mobility)
>after Mot split into Motorola Mobility and Motorola Solutions.
It also owns Android.
>If you're talking about Android phones, Android is Linux based.
Irrelevant.
On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 16:02:36 -0500, j <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 12/6/2013 2:41 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 11:49:57 -0500, j <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/6/2013 8:29 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 01:49:37 -0500, j <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/5/2013 9:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 19:22:21 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/05/2013 07:08 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:58:52 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 12/05/2013 06:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:33:08 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/05/2013 05:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 23:36:36 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> j wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try disabling the plugins, they can be problematic in FF. Flash can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a crasher and Chrome handles those crashes better. Memory leaks?,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dunno for sure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm a web developer, so I have a wide variety of browsers, FireFox
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just doesn't seem to be the animal it used to be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately - that seems to be true. So, as a web developer, are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggesting Chrome over Firefox these days? It's not clear from your comment
>>>>>>>>>>>>> above. What a shame - Firefox used to be the relief from the Microsoft
>>>>>>>>>>>>> crap, and now seems to be more of the same.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd rather not jump out of Microsoft's bed into Google's[*]. I'll
>>>>>>>>>>>> stick with Firefox.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [*] Apple vs. Google (cell phones) isn't a lot of choice, IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Google bought the old Motorola cell phone division (Motorola Mobility)
>>>>>>>>>>> after Mot split into Motorola Mobility and Motorola Solutions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It also owns Android.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you're talking about Android phones, Android is Linux based.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not irrelevant if you're comparing M$ and Google phones.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course it is. It doesn't matter a whit where Android comes from,
>>>>>>>> it is *NOT* Linux. I wasn't really, but that part is apt, anyway.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Android interface is most certainly built on top of the linux
>>>>>>> kernel. There are may interfaces that run on top of the linux kernel,
>>>>>>> KDE, GNOME, XFCE,....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, good grief, another Linux junky. "The world is Linux!!!!"
>>>>>> <GMAFB!>
>>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)
>>>>>
>>>>> "Android is an operating system based on the Linux kernel,"
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant. Can you run Linux apps, unchanged, on your cell phone?
>>>>
>>>>> For that matter the Mac OS X is *nix based
>>>>
>>>> Which doesn't make it Linux, either.
>>>>
>>>>> Each OS has it's place. But the world is trending away from windows on
>>>>> the mobile. Windows is a hog, with way too much that never should have
>>>>> been in the kernel. In mobile devices power consumption is key and *nix
>>>>> devices are way ahead in that as well as being leaner.
>>>>
>>>> So what? I don't care for Windows but I really have no choice. That
>>>> was the whole point! <sheesh>
>>>
>>> I haven't been following this whole thread, so whatever your point was,
>>> was missed.
>>
>> Of course. There are none so blind as a true believer.
>>
>>> Linux is not the Linux of even a few years ago.
>>
>> Also completely irrelevant.
>>
>> <completely irrelevant chest thumping snipped>
>>
>Clearly, you've made up your mind to believe what you believe.
Clearly you can neither read nor think.
>Go, live in your own world.
You really are a moron.
On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 22:18:15 -0500, woodchucker <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 12/6/2013 7:25 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 19:00:08 -0500, woodchucker <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/6/2013 8:29 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "Android is an operating system based on the Linux kernel,"
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant. Can you run Linux apps, unchanged, on your cell phone?
>>>>
>>>>> For that matter the Mac OS X is *nix based
>>>>
>>>> Which doesn't make it Linux, either.
>>>>
>>>>> Each OS has it's place. But the world is trending away from windows on
>>>>> the mobile. Windows is a hog, with way too much that never should have
>>>>> been in the kernel. In mobile devices power consumption is key and *nix
>>>>> devices are way ahead in that as well as being leaner.
>>>>
>>>> So what? I don't care for Windows but I really have no choice. That
>>>> was the whole point! <sheesh>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Really, why not?
>>
>> Support, apps. You know, the things that really matter. Only the
>> ultra-religious care about what goes on underneath.
>>
>>> You can easily use either a mac or linux.
>>
>> Sure I can. So what?
>>
>>> there's very little these days that isn't browser based or java based.
>>> So many apps run on all platforms.
>>
>> Evidently your whole life is spent on the Web. Whatever floats your
>> boat but I have work to do, too.
>>
>Actually my life is spent supporting extremely large systems whether
>they be Linux, solaris, hpux, aix, etc.. I support terabytes of data ..
>I don't care which O/S it is, as long as it is not MS. I don't
>appreciate the problems I encounter when I tried having large systems
>run on MS.
"as long as it's not MS". That says it all. If you're in support,
who are you to tell the users what they must use. That's as bad as
"support" people telling engineers that they can't use Linux.
>you are just a grumpy ass today.
Well, people telling me that I said something I didn't does tend to
rub me the wrong way. I said *nothing* about the usability of any OS
until the religious crowd started their proselytizing. Then the only
thing I said that Linux *ISN'T* supported well enough and "it's the
apps".
>So go to the bathroom and take a shit.. maybe you'll come back a nicer
>grump.
Maybe, but Sunday isn't for two days. Expect the religious nuts to
keep it up until at least then. They *CANNOT* do anything else but
proselytize.
On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 16:12:58 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 12/6/2013 1:42 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2013 17:48:49 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 08:29:57 -0500, krw wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "Android is an operating system based on the Linux kernel,"
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant. Can you run Linux apps, unchanged, on your cell phone?
>>>
>>> Yes. See:
>>>
>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/ubuntu-for-android
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> For that matter the Mac OS X is *nix based
>>>>
>>>> Which doesn't make it Linux, either.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Makes it a heck of a lot closer than Windows.
>>
>> Good Lord! Another true believer flushed out!
>>
>> <...>
>>
>
>
>This Linux software, it that for those that can't figure Windows out?
Nah, it's just another religion. The true believers must evangelize
whenever anyone says anything that even tangentially refers to their
true calling. They can't even read, only evangelize.
>;~) Duck'n n run'n
Chicken!
On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 17:20:30 -0500, krw wrote:
>>Clearly, you've made up your mind to believe what you believe.
>
> Clearly you can neither read nor think.
>
>>Go, live in your own world.
>
> You really are a moron.
Are you through trolling yet?
Was your mother scared by a penguin?
--
This message was for rec.woodworking - if it appears in homeownershub
they ripped it off.
On 12/6/2013 5:20 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> Of course. There are none so blind as a true believer.
>>>
>>>> Linux is not the Linux of even a few years ago.
>>>
>>> Also completely irrelevant.
>>>
>>> <completely irrelevant chest thumping snipped>
>>>
>> Clearly, you've made up your mind to believe what you believe.
>
> Clearly you can neither read nor think.
>
>> Go, live in your own world.
>
> You really are a moron.
>
You're off your meds again aren't you?
Damn, I'm going to have to call the looney bin again.
--
Jeff
On 12/5/2013 4:45 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> RE: Subject
>
> Thanks to all who responded.
>
> It appears the problem is with the home page I had chosen,
> Huffington Post, not updating rather than the browser, FireFox.
>
> Guess I shouldn't be surprised now that AOL owns HP.
>
> Just out of curosity, what do other people use as their home
> page?
What else would you expect from a liberal website, Lew? ;)
I use Yahoo so I can customize the National and local news, my geek
stuff, woodworking stuff like FWW blogs etc. Been using it for ten years
of more and have gotten used to it, and I've had a yahoo email account
for at least that long, so it all works.
I also have a customized local .htm page on my hard drive, with tons of
much used links, that is tabbed to the browser.
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
google.com/+KarlCaillouet
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On 12/5/2013 5:45 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> RE: Subject
>
> Thanks to all who responded.
>
> It appears the problem is with the home page I had chosen,
> Huffington Post, not updating rather than the browser, FireFox.
>
> Guess I shouldn't be surprised now that AOL owns HP.
>
> Just out of curosity, what do other people use as their home
> page?
>
>
> Lew
>
>
>
GOOGLE
--
Jeff
On 12/4/2013 11:36 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> j wrote:
>
>>
>> Try disabling the plugins, they can be problematic in FF. Flash can
>> be a crasher and Chrome handles those crashes better. Memory leaks?,
>> dunno for sure.
>>
>> I'm a web developer, so I have a wide variety of browsers, FireFox
>> just doesn't seem to be the animal it used to be.
>>
>
> Unfortunately - that seems to be true. So, as a web developer, are you
> suggesting Chrome over Firefox these days? It's not clear from your comment
> above. What a shame - Firefox used to be the relief from the Microsoft
> crap, and now seems to be more of the same.
>
Yea Mozilla has been adding more features that act like MS.
Thunderbird has that same problem... it's annoying.
They took some good products and turned them to shit. I still like
Tbird,buttttt I know the end is coming soon. They just keep leaning the
wrong way.
--
Jeff
On 12/5/2013 2:45 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Just out of curosity, what do other people use as their home
> page?
>
>
> Lew
I get a bit of news sans the various cable slants at
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/. I also watch an hour or so of tv: a bit
to catch the local weather and the night's shootings and other
bloodletting on the abc affiliate. For national/international info, I
recently switched to the Al Jazeera cable channel for its American
service. Otherwise, lots of music web sites for classical, blues, jazz,
rock, and honest to God country. Swing away.