Firefox 2.0.0.1 trashes Java Console

Discussion in 'Java' started by Mickey Segal, Dec 20, 2006.

  1. Mickey Segal

    Mickey Segal Guest

    The latest Firefox update (2.0 to 2.0.0.1) de-activates the Java Console and
    suggests fixing the problem by getting an updated version of the Java
    plugin. Uninstalling JRE 7 build 02 and installing the current pre-release
    build 04 (from http://download.java.net/jdk7/binaries/) does not restore the
    Java Console in Firefox.

    I haven't tried using the latest official release of Java, but one would
    hope that the pre-release builds are at least as advanced in all respects.

    Does anyone know how to get this working properly?
     
    Mickey Segal, Dec 20, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mickey Segal

    Oliver Wong Guest

    "Mickey Segal" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > The latest Firefox update (2.0 to 2.0.0.1) de-activates the Java Console
    > and suggests fixing the problem by getting an updated version of the Java
    > plugin. Uninstalling JRE 7 build 02 and installing the current
    > pre-release build 04 (from http://download.java.net/jdk7/binaries/) does
    > not restore the Java Console in Firefox.
    >
    > I haven't tried using the latest official release of Java, but one would
    > hope that the pre-release builds are at least as advanced in all respects.
    >
    > Does anyone know how to get this working properly?


    I've got JDK 1.5.0_06 and JDK 1.6.0, and the console doesn't work there
    either.

    - Oliver
     
    Oliver Wong, Dec 20, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mickey Segal

    Mickey Segal Guest

    "Oliver Wong" <> wrote in message
    news:2Jdih.125403$...
    > I've got JDK 1.5.0_06 and JDK 1.6.0, and the console doesn't work there
    > either.


    It sounds from this post on mozilla.support.firefox that this is something
    Sun needs to fix:

    http://groups.google.com/group/mozi...read/thread/490b5d57fc3b8360/ec8397452742dcf1

    "This is not a problem with Firefox but a problem with how Sun Microsystems
    wrote the Java Console extension. They specified in the extension that the
    maximum version that it would work on will be Firefox 2.0, they should have
    specified the maximum version as 2.0.0.*

    When Firefox updated to 2.0.0.1 it checked the installed extensions and
    since the Java console extension only specified that it would work with 2.0
    it was disabled."
     
    Mickey Segal, Dec 20, 2006
    #3
  4. Mickey Segal wrote:
    > "Oliver Wong" <> wrote in message
    > news:2Jdih.125403$...
    >
    >>I've got JDK 1.5.0_06 and JDK 1.6.0, and the console doesn't work there
    >>either.

    >
    >
    > It sounds from this post on mozilla.support.firefox that this is something
    > Sun needs to fix:


    There is however something that Mozilla needs to fix. I got hit with a
    double-dose of screwy behavior. My Firefox announced that there was a
    new version available: 1.5.9. I canned the dialog since losing all my
    open tabs at the time would have been inconvenient, and went manually to
    mozilla.org later. I found that the latest version available was
    actually 2.0.0.1, far later than 1.5.9! Here's hoping the 2.0.0.1
    auto-update functionality is a bit smarter about detecting what the
    latest version *really* is.

    Then, of course, I got bit by the "Java Console disabled" thing.

    Fortunately, I don't tend to use it, since I'm developing apps not applets.

    However, Mozilla's own auto-update code thinking 1.5.9 > 2.0.0.1 makes
    me doubt that this is entirely Sun's fault. It looks like any error Sun
    made may have been because of confusing, corner-casey behavior in
    Mozilla's version number comparator. A comparator that at least *used*
    to think 1.5.9 > 2.0.0.1. Of course, 2.0.0.1 > 2.0 is correct, but
    requiring funky wildcards to include minor versions seems like a recipe
    for confusion and error. It should be "first version NOT supported",
    like String's "substring(begin, end+1)" interval idiom, so Sun would
    have said "need a new version for 2.1" rather than "OK up to 2.0" and
    everything would be fine. :)
     
    John Ersatznom, Dec 21, 2006
    #4
  5. Mickey Segal

    Tim Slattery Guest

    John Ersatznom <> wrote:

    >Mickey Segal wrote:
    >> "Oliver Wong" <> wrote in message
    >> news:2Jdih.125403$...
    >>
    >>>I've got JDK 1.5.0_06 and JDK 1.6.0, and the console doesn't work there
    >>>either.

    >>
    >>
    >> It sounds from this post on mozilla.support.firefox that this is something
    >> Sun needs to fix:

    >
    >There is however something that Mozilla needs to fix. I got hit with a
    >double-dose of screwy behavior. My Firefox announced that there was a
    >new version available: 1.5.9. I canned the dialog since losing all my
    >open tabs at the time would have been inconvenient, and went manually to
    >mozilla.org later. I found that the latest version available was
    >actually 2.0.0.1, far later than 1.5.9! Here's hoping the 2.0.0.1
    >auto-update functionality is a bit smarter about detecting what the
    >latest version *really* is.


    The 1.* version never offered the upgrade to 2.* as an automatic
    upgrade, the way it does for the smaller "point" updates. Apparently
    Mozilla considers 1.* and 2.* to be separate applications.

    As to losing your tabs: Firefox 2.x doesn't. It will notify you of the
    update and ask whether you want to install it now. If you say yes, it
    closes the browser, does the necessary, then restarts the browser and
    restores all the tabs that were open when it closed. It also opens on
    more tab where the "Successful update" page is displayed.

    --
    Tim Slattery

    http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
     
    Tim Slattery, Dec 21, 2006
    #5
  6. Tim Slattery wrote:
    > The 1.* version never offered the upgrade to 2.* as an automatic
    > upgrade, the way it does for the smaller "point" updates. Apparently
    > Mozilla considers 1.* and 2.* to be separate applications.


    That doesn't make any sense, since they're not.

    > As to losing your tabs: Firefox 2.x doesn't.


    But the Firefox 1.5.7 I was using at the time would have.
     
    John Ersatznom, Dec 21, 2006
    #6
  7. Mickey Segal

    Oliver Wong Guest

    "John Ersatznom" <> wrote in message
    news:emd2n0$u4b$...
    >
    > There is however something that Mozilla needs to fix. I got hit with a
    > double-dose of screwy behavior. My Firefox announced that there was a new
    > version available: 1.5.9. I canned the dialog since losing all my open
    > tabs at the time would have been inconvenient, and went manually to
    > mozilla.org later. I found that the latest version available was actually
    > 2.0.0.1, far later than 1.5.9! Here's hoping the 2.0.0.1 auto-update
    > functionality is a bit smarter about detecting what the latest version
    > *really* is.


    Actually, I think what you experienced was the intended behaviour. You
    mentioned elsewhere in the thread that you were using "1.5.7". "2.0.0.1" is
    not considered to be an automatic upgrade for "1.5.7", but "1.5.9" *is*.
    It's like how Apache 2.0 and Apache 1.3 are separate products, and both of
    them are still actively developed.

    [...]

    > It should be "first version NOT supported", like String's
    > "substring(begin, end+1)" interval idiom, so Sun would have said "need a
    > new version for 2.1" rather than "OK up to 2.0" and everything would be
    > fine. :)


    Except that Sun (and other plugin developers) probably can't predict the
    future. How will they know whether or not a new version of the plugin will
    be needed for 2.1, unless they have a copy of Firefox 2.1 to test with?
    Contrast this with the fact that they DO have a copy of Firefox 2.0, so they
    can state "It works OK with Firefox 2.0. Anything higher, and we're not
    making any promises."

    - Oliver
     
    Oliver Wong, Dec 21, 2006
    #7
  8. Oliver Wong wrote:
    > Actually, I think what you experienced was the intended behaviour. You
    > mentioned elsewhere in the thread that you were using "1.5.7". "2.0.0.1" is
    > not considered to be an automatic upgrade for "1.5.7", but "1.5.9" *is*.
    > It's like how Apache 2.0 and Apache 1.3 are separate products, and both of
    > them are still actively developed.


    Let me get this straight. You're claiming that the intended behavior is
    to nag the user about every single minor bugfix or tweak update, but not
    to bother informing them about a major upgrade's availability?

    That would be equivalent to Windows XP Update constantly nagging you
    about bugfixes (which it does on a weekly basis) while Microsoft quietly
    stocked store shelves with shrinkwrapped boxes of Windows Vista without
    any fanfare and simply hoped people would accidentally stumble onto them
    while shopping some day.

    Mind you, having Windows Update nag you to upgrade to Vista would be
    annoying, because Vista costs money and is as much a downgrade
    (performance, DRM) as an upgrade, but Firefox 1.x to 2.0 is a straight
    upgrade, and free, rather than a lateral move that costs money.

    >>It should be "first version NOT supported", like String's
    >>"substring(begin, end+1)" interval idiom, so Sun would have said "need a
    >>new version for 2.1" rather than "OK up to 2.0" and everything would be
    >>fine. :)

    >
    > Except that Sun (and other plugin developers) probably can't predict the
    > future. How will they know whether or not a new version of the plugin will
    > be needed for 2.1, unless they have a copy of Firefox 2.1 to test with?
    > Contrast this with the fact that they DO have a copy of Firefox 2.0, so they
    > can state "It works OK with Firefox 2.0. Anything higher, and we're not
    > making any promises."


    The claim was that Sun should have said it would work with 2.0.0.* or
    2.0.* or similarly. The latter definitely amounts to "it may not work
    with 2.1" and the former to "it may not work with 2.0.1". It's a matter
    of whether you specify the end point or one past the end point, and in
    this case it looks like requiring specifying the end point was the more
    confusing choice.

    More generally, plugin developers would have the problem of guessing
    exactly what the first future version would be where it no longer worked
    (or the last where it did). Maybe Mozilla should take a page from Sun's
    book here, and just publish an interface that plugins will always work
    if they adhere to, and keep a separate version (like serialVersionUID)
    for just the interface, which changes only when an incompatible change
    to the interface is made that won't work with old plugins.

    Better still, they could have done what most software has been doing
    since the 80s or earlier, and been backward compatible with older
    versions. Any plugin that worked in Firefox x would then work in Firefox
    x+1, but changes to the interface, when such were made, would mean some
    plugins designed for x+1 might not work in x.
     
    John Ersatznom, Dec 21, 2006
    #8
  9. Mickey Segal

    Oliver Wong Guest

    "John Ersatznom" <> wrote in message
    news:emeec0$bj$...
    > Oliver Wong wrote:
    >> Actually, I think what you experienced was the intended behaviour.
    >> You mentioned elsewhere in the thread that you were using "1.5.7".
    >> "2.0.0.1" is not considered to be an automatic upgrade for "1.5.7", but
    >> "1.5.9" *is*. It's like how Apache 2.0 and Apache 1.3 are separate
    >> products, and both of them are still actively developed.

    >
    > Let me get this straight. You're claiming that the intended behavior is to
    > nag the user about every single minor bugfix or tweak update, but not to
    > bother informing them about a major upgrade's availability?

    [...]

    No. The intended behaviour is to notify the user of updates available to
    software that is installed on his/her computer, and not to notify them of
    updates to software which isn't installed on his/her computer. Given that
    the FireFox 2.0 and Firefox 1.5 series are considered different products by
    Mozilla, a FireFox 1.5 user should not be notified about a FireFox 2.0
    update, just as much as a Opera user shouldn't be notified about a FireFox
    2.0 update.

    >
    > That would be equivalent to Windows XP Update constantly nagging you about
    > bugfixes (which it does on a weekly basis) while Microsoft quietly stocked
    > store shelves with shrinkwrapped boxes of Windows Vista without any
    > fanfare and simply hoped people would accidentally stumble onto them while
    > shopping some day.
    >
    > Mind you, having Windows Update nag you to upgrade to Vista would be
    > annoying, because Vista costs money and is as much a downgrade
    > (performance, DRM) as an upgrade,


    Actually, yeah, your comparison is apt. Some people feel that 1.5 is
    better than 2.X. Rather than piss those people off, Mozilla felt that 2.0
    should be considered a completely seperate product, and 1.5 will continue to
    be actively developed in parallel with 2.0

    > but Firefox 1.x to 2.0 is a straight upgrade, and free, rather than a
    > lateral move that costs money.


    People disagree with this assertion.

    >
    >>>It should be "first version NOT supported", like String's
    >>>"substring(begin, end+1)" interval idiom, so Sun would have said "need a
    >>>new version for 2.1" rather than "OK up to 2.0" and everything would be
    >>>fine. :)

    >>
    >> Except that Sun (and other plugin developers) probably can't predict
    >> the future. How will they know whether or not a new version of the plugin
    >> will be needed for 2.1, unless they have a copy of Firefox 2.1 to test
    >> with? Contrast this with the fact that they DO have a copy of Firefox
    >> 2.0, so they can state "It works OK with Firefox 2.0. Anything higher,
    >> and we're not making any promises."

    >
    > The claim was that Sun should have said it would work with 2.0.0.* or
    > 2.0.* or similarly. The latter definitely amounts to "it may not work with
    > 2.1" and the former to "it may not work with 2.0.1". It's a matter of
    > whether you specify the end point or one past the end point, and in this
    > case it looks like requiring specifying the end point was the more
    > confusing choice.


    Right. I guess I was focusing more on the "need a new version" instead
    of "*maybe* need a new version".

    >
    > More generally, plugin developers would have the problem of guessing
    > exactly what the first future version would be where it no longer worked
    > (or the last where it did). Maybe Mozilla should take a page from Sun's
    > book here, and just publish an interface that plugins will always work if
    > they adhere to, and keep a separate version (like serialVersionUID) for
    > just the interface, which changes only when an incompatible change to the
    > interface is made that won't work with old plugins.
    >
    > Better still, they could have done what most software has been doing since
    > the 80s or earlier, and been backward compatible with older versions. Any
    > plugin that worked in Firefox x would then work in Firefox x+1, but
    > changes to the interface, when such were made, would mean some plugins
    > designed for x+1 might not work in x.


    Well, dem's the apples...

    - Oliver
     
    Oliver Wong, Dec 21, 2006
    #9
  10. Mickey Segal

    Tim Slattery Guest

    John Ersatznom <> wrote:

    >Oliver Wong wrote:
    >> Actually, I think what you experienced was the intended behaviour. You
    >> mentioned elsewhere in the thread that you were using "1.5.7". "2.0.0.1" is
    >> not considered to be an automatic upgrade for "1.5.7", but "1.5.9" *is*.
    >> It's like how Apache 2.0 and Apache 1.3 are separate products, and both of
    >> them are still actively developed.

    >
    >Let me get this straight. You're claiming that the intended behavior is
    >to nag the user about every single minor bugfix or tweak update, but not
    >to bother informing them about a major upgrade's availability?


    Apparently, yes.

    >That would be equivalent to Windows XP Update constantly nagging you
    >about bugfixes (which it does on a weekly basis) while Microsoft quietly
    >stocked store shelves with shrinkwrapped boxes of Windows Vista without
    >any fanfare and simply hoped people would accidentally stumble onto them
    >while shopping some day.


    AFAIK, Windows Update doesn't let you know about Vista or offer to
    upgrade you to that system.

    --
    Tim Slattery

    http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
     
    Tim Slattery, Dec 21, 2006
    #10
  11. Oliver Wong wrote:
    > No. The intended behaviour is to notify the user of updates available to
    > software that is installed on his/her computer, and not to notify them of
    > updates to software which isn't installed on his/her computer.


    Since Firefox is software which is installed on my computer, I rest my
    case. Yep -- I would find it screwy if the Firefox auto-update told me
    about a new version of Windows, or even of Thunderbird.

    > Given that the FireFox 2.0 and Firefox 1.5 series are considered

    different
    > products by Mozilla


    What Mozilla internaly considers them is irrelevant to the end user. The
    end user sees "Firefox version whatever". None of this is making any
    sense, anyway -- they could as well consider Firefox 1.4 and 1.5
    "different products", or even 2.0 and 2.0.0.1 "different products".
    That's just word-games.

    > Actually, yeah, your comparison is apt. Some people feel that 1.5 is
    > better than 2.X.


    That is illogical; 2.0 is a straight upgrade rather than a sidegrade.
    Firefox 1.5 is not to 2.0 as it is to Opera, or IE, which is what you
    seem to be claiming.

    >>but Firefox 1.x to 2.0 is a straight upgrade, and free, rather than a
    >>lateral move that costs money.

    >
    > People disagree with this assertion.


    What "people"? There's a good reason why wikipedia would flag your
    article with "This article contains weasel words" if you'd written this
    there, you know...
     
    John Ersatznom, Dec 22, 2006
    #11
  12. Tim Slattery wrote:
    > AFAIK, Windows Update doesn't let you know about Vista or offer to
    > upgrade you to that system.


    That's largely because Vista isn't free. It's also not true anyway. I
    just did some research, and Windows Update did something suspiciously
    like what you are describing a few months back, when the big "Vista is
    coming!" MS hype machine was in full bore.

    First, it pushed people to install "Windows genuine advantage" with the
    threat to withhold updates if it wasn't installed, or reported your copy
    of windows was phony.

    Next, it pushed people to install "Windows genuine advantage
    notification", which would supposedly make the former tell the *user*
    and not just Microsoft if it thought their windows were phony.

    In actual fact, the "notification" thing had all kinds of side effects
    and some sort of legal crud telling people they weren't permitted to
    remove it once they'd installed it. One of the commonest side effects
    was that WGA would "suddenly realize" that their copy was bogus. This
    would stop updates being available to the user, but worse, it would
    often force them to actually redo the "product activation", whereupon MS
    would frequently refuse to cooperate on the grounds that their windows
    copy was supposedly bogus. This often happened to people who had gotten
    preloaded machines with Windows on and hadn't done any funny business.
    It also did not happen to people who only installed the first of the two
    "genuine advantage" thingies.

    Moreover, the "notification" thing was NOT necessary to continue to
    receive updates. Also, both were pushed as "critical" updates by Windows
    Update, as if they were security patches to protect users from being
    hacked. They weren't -- in fact, the "notifications" one, at least,
    actually made users have *less* control over their machines, so if
    anything there should have been a "critical update" to *remove* the
    "notifications" update; I think I'd have recommended including it in the
    next "malicious software removal tool" myself.

    I found posts on multiple software-pundit, product-gripe, and similar
    blogs all speculating that the real motive behind these bogus "critical
    security fix" updates wasn't users' security, or even (a false sense of)
    security for Microsoft's so-called "intellectual property", but in fact
    to push people towards Vista. The "notifications" update created the
    ability to remotely deactivate already-activated copies of Windows XP,
    which otherwise would work until people changed their hardware sufficiently.

    Apparently, Microsoft found the two or three year average replacement
    time for peoples' PCs to be too slow and impatiently figured out a way
    to force people to replace XP sooner than that, leveraging the existing
    product activation.

    It backfired. There was so much bad press that MS yanked most of the
    "notifications" misfeatures in a later update and quit peddling it, and
    decided to let people who were happy with their XP keep it until they
    have new hardware after all.

    But there is one way in which you are technically correct. The updates
    didn't themselves explicitly push Vista. Although making XP stop working
    and leaving users with no recourse except to buy a new copy of Windows,
    even while XP is being swept off the shelves and Vista boxes lined up by
    their hundreds, amounts to the same thing. Well, worse, actually.
    Nagging about an update is common practise. The kind of arm-twisting
    observed here is the special province of Microsoft, governments, and the
    mob, as near as I can make out. :p
     
    John Ersatznom, Dec 22, 2006
    #12
  13. Mickey Segal

    Oliver Wong Guest

    "John Ersatznom" <> wrote in message
    news:emg9fv$t0s$...
    > > Given that the FireFox 2.0 and Firefox 1.5 series are considered
    > > different
    > > products by Mozilla

    >
    > What Mozilla internaly considers them is irrelevant to the end user. The
    > end user sees "Firefox version whatever". None of this is making any
    > sense, anyway -- they could as well consider Firefox 1.4 and 1.5
    > "different products", or even 2.0 and 2.0.0.1 "different products". That's
    > just word-games.
    >
    >> Actually, yeah, your comparison is apt. Some people feel that 1.5 is
    >> better than 2.X.

    >
    > That is illogical; 2.0 is a straight upgrade rather than a sidegrade.
    > Firefox 1.5 is not to 2.0 as it is to Opera, or IE, which is what you seem
    > to be claiming.


    Are you twisted? I'm explaining to you why things are the way they are
    now. You are free to argue that things *shouldn't* be that way, but that
    doesn't change the fact that that's the way they are.

    >>>but Firefox 1.x to 2.0 is a straight upgrade, and free, rather than a
    >>>lateral move that costs money.

    >>
    >> People disagree with this assertion.

    >
    > What "people"?


    http://listvine.com/2006/10/25/9-reasons-not-to-upgrade-to-firefox-20/
    http://bluey.livejournal.com/116819.html
    http://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?ForumId=48&TopicId=10004
    etc.

    > There's a good reason why wikipedia would flag your article with "This
    > article contains weasel words" if you'd written this there, you know...


    Luckily this isn't Wikipedia.

    - Oliver
     
    Oliver Wong, Dec 22, 2006
    #13
  14. Tim Slattery wrote:
    > John Ersatznom <> wrote:
    >
    >> Mickey Segal wrote:
    >>> "Oliver Wong" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:2Jdih.125403$...
    >>>
    >>>> I've got JDK 1.5.0_06 and JDK 1.6.0, and the console doesn't work there
    >>>> either.
    >>>
    >>> It sounds from this post on mozilla.support.firefox that this is something
    >>> Sun needs to fix:

    >> There is however something that Mozilla needs to fix. I got hit with a
    >> double-dose of screwy behavior. My Firefox announced that there was a
    >> new version available: 1.5.9. I canned the dialog since losing all my
    >> open tabs at the time would have been inconvenient, and went manually to
    >> mozilla.org later. I found that the latest version available was
    >> actually 2.0.0.1, far later than 1.5.9! Here's hoping the 2.0.0.1
    >> auto-update functionality is a bit smarter about detecting what the
    >> latest version *really* is.

    >
    > The 1.* version never offered the upgrade to 2.* as an automatic
    > upgrade, the way it does for the smaller "point" updates. Apparently
    > Mozilla considers 1.* and 2.* to be separate applications.


    No, it just regards 2.* as too radical for automatic update /at/ /present/.

    --
    John W. Kennedy
    "The blind rulers of Logres
    Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
    -- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
     
    John W. Kennedy, Dec 22, 2006
    #14
  15. John W. Kennedy wrote:
    > No, it just regards 2.* as too radical for automatic update /at/ /present/.


    We're not talking about automatic update though. We're talking about
    automatic update *notification*. Which the user then gets to act on, or
    not, as they choose.

    Telling the user that 2.x is now available and including an "[ ] I'm not
    interested in Firefox 2, so don't tell me about it again" to use if they
    really prefer 1.x would have worked nicely.
     
    John Ersatznom, Dec 23, 2006
    #15
  16. Oliver Wong wrote:
    > Are you twisted?


    Only when I'm playing Quake. Then I do things like shove opponents into
    the lava to boil and scream rather than just snuff them out with my
    rocket launcher. Otherwise...nah.

    > I'm explaining to you why things are the way they are now. You are free
    > to argue that things *shouldn't* be that way, but that doesn't change
    > the fact that that's the way they are.


    You seem to think that somehow that makes you "right" and me "wrong",
    when it just means you're talking right past me for some reason.

    >>There's a good reason why wikipedia would flag your article with "This
    >>article contains weasel words" if you'd written this there, you know...

    >
    > Luckily this isn't Wikipedia.


    ITYM "Unluckily". Unclear and weaselly debating tactics may make you
    look clever or your opponent look stupid, but they don't actually alter
    the facts being debated. Are you here to discuss factual matters or are
    you here to win "points" by getting into debates and "winning"
    arguments? If the latter, might I suggest alt.flame or some similar
    group instead? Same goes for that fellow you were arguing for weeks with
    at the start of this month. Nobody who helps clutter up a technical
    group with 500+ offtopic articles in less than twenty days at an average
    rate of around 1 an hour has won any "points" in my books. In fact,
    nobody here is winning any "points" in my books at all. All that really
    matters is the code, and what it does...in fact, I probably shouldn't
    post anything after this to this digression about Firefox. Everyone's
    missing the point anyway, it seems, including the Mozilla devs, which is
    that update notification functionality that doesn't notify a user of new
    versions of their stuff isn't doing its job. Apparently, nobody will
    find out about some new Firefox versions that become available unless
    they regularly visit their Web site. If they have to do that to remain
    fully informed anyway, the whole purpose of having
    auto-update-notification functionality in the product has been defeated.

    'Nuff said on the topic.
     
    John Ersatznom, Dec 23, 2006
    #16
  17. Oliver Wong wrote:
    > http://listvine.com/2006/10/25/9-reasons-not-to-upgrade-to-firefox-20/
    > http://bluey.livejournal.com/116819.html
    > http://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?ForumId=48&TopicId=10004
    > etc.


    OK, that wasn't quite my last word on the subject after all. I just got
    around to checking these links, and the very first one gives me an error
    page rather than any kind of content. I didn't even bother to try the
    other two after seeing that.

    If you really want to back up something in a debate with outside
    references, it really doesn't look too good when it's obvious you didn't
    even make sure the links you posted work, unless the thing you're trying
    to prove is actually the fact that the link doesn't work, or that
    there's such a thing as a 404 response code in HTTP, or something like
    that. :)
     
    John Ersatznom, Dec 23, 2006
    #17
  18. Mickey Segal

    Mickey Segal Guest

    Mickey Segal, Dec 23, 2006
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Tom Wells
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    476
  2. Ben Finney
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,001
    Egor Bolonev
    Jun 30, 2003
  3. Julie Siebel
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    142
    Dr John Stockton
    Feb 25, 2004
  4. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    150
  5. Replies:
    14
    Views:
    200
    Nathan Keel
    May 6, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page