linuxgeek: Re: [LINUX_Newbies] Re: Firefox problem

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Re: [LINUX_Newbies] Re: Firefox problem

Don't worry Gary, the better Linux gets, the quicker the elitists will
climb back under their rock. Until then, it is best not to feed the trolls.

Justin

Gary wrote:
>
>
> @Jeff -- I will place and frame my replies to a post where *I* choose.
> I prefer to "top post" because the thoroughly inadequate Y!Groups
> interface makes doing otherwise more difficult. Also, "top posting"
> insures that *my* comments appear in the summary of the post in the
> main thread view, rather than seeing only the first words of the OP
> over and over and over again. And then seeing the intervening comments
> again and again. Repetition is a pet peeve of mine.
>
> I also try to frame my replies so that reading the quoted material
> isn't strictly needed, I include it only for review and verification.
> You and ALL of the "don't top post" whiners need to effin' GET OVER
> YOURSELVES. That said, now to the real meat of the commentary,
> interspersed below for your pleasure.
>
> --- In LINUX_Newbies@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:LINUX_Newbies%40yahoogroups.com>, J <dreadpiratejeff@...> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 18:51, Gary <xheralt@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't care how much y'all hate FF3.x, reverting to FF 2.x is a
> security breach waiting to happen, and the *worst* frakking advice >
> to give someone.
> >
> > When's the last time you had a box rooted?
>
> You're right, I haven't.
>
> > Thought so. FWIW, I've run FF 2.x for a very long time on multiple
> > machines,
>
> And I've been running FF3.x on multiple machines under multiple
> distros with heavy (public) use, and I've never been rooted. WHAT'S
> YOUR POINT?
>
> > (...) than suggesting someone continue to run a poorly designed
> > browser that continuously suffers from memory leaks and random
> > bugginess.
>
> FF2.x was not free of memory leaks, either!
>
> It makes more sense to me that older code (e.g. 2.x) by virtue of
> having been exposed longer would have more exploits developed against
> it. How does this make 2.x better than 3.x?
>
> >
> > Ahhh... You are a former Windows user, yes?
>
> So what if I am? Granted I've only been using Linux (exclusively) for
> about three years, an eyeblink from your lofty perspective, don't look
> down your effin' nose at me! And I'll admit I'm fairly dependant on
> GUI, with only occasional excursions into commandline magic-working.
> That doesn't make me a bad person.
>
> > That's the problem that
> > arises from a software company with dominant market share that
> > produces substandard product.
>
> So, let me get this straight -- you're equating the Mozilla Foundation
> with M$?!!!
>
> >
> > Extensions I can appreciate... but Themes?
>
> Again with the looking-down-the-nose. *sigh* Bad habit of yours,
> friend. So what if I get tired of looking at the same old buttons all
> the time? So what if I happen to appreciate aesthetics? One of the
> things that sold me on Linux was that I could change the colorations
> of the panels at will without downloading (and registering online) for
> 3rd-party software like WindowBlinds! I pity your bland, colorless,
> always-the-same existence.
>
> > > I'm running PCLOS 2009.2 on a 1.8GHz Sempron-based laptop, and
> never had that autoscrolling problem.
> > >
> >
> > THAT's important, because honestly, I'd never run into anything like
> > the OP was describing on any FF version ever...
>
> My laptop has only 384MB. Yes, that's MEG. One-tenth of what V!$+a
> requires. I've run FF under XFCE-based distros with as little as 192MB
> with no problems, such as what the OP had.
>
> > BUT you are right. Sometimes a fresh
> > install of a new version is the cure... I vote this for the OP ;-)
>
> Well, at least we agree on SOMETHING...
>
>