On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > So far you seem to be describing the way netscape 4 behaves, not
> > mozilla. Your experience may of course be different.
> I've also had these problems with netscape. I still see mozilla as slow
> and instable, and while not downright ugly, certainly a screen hog.
Fair enough: You don't like mozilla.
> > > When it's not working right it can not only crash itself, but
> > > can/will crash the X session, put the processor into a loop, start
> > > processes that refuse to be "killed," and crash the system, forcing
> > > unhealthy reboots.
> > So far, so netscape: I can't say mozilla has done this to me for a few
> > months.
> It's been months since I've had it installed, so mayhaps it's been
> fixed, although there were enough (what I call) design flaws to disuade
> me from reinstalling it now at version 1.0.
> For example? Well, the biggest thing that irked me was that a page
> would have to _completely_ download before being viewed, and if I
I don't see this behaviour. In fact, I have a (slow download)
partially loaded page in front of me right now... You didn't
tick off some random witch doctor while doing your install,
[snip: I won't test it but I assume Konq would be better]
There are things I hate about mozilla, and I would be the first to
rant about how bad they are, if provoked - I just don't happen to think
your objections are, well, verifiably correct: Basically you hate mozilla,
for whatever reason, good or bad, and refuse to compare it to anything
similar. I think I'll walk away from this discussion now, my asbestos
underpants are at the dry-cleaners...
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org
- Re: flame
- From: Thatcher Ulrich <email@example.com>
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org