[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Firefox (still missing here...)

On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 09:12:19PM -0700, brian wrote:
> --- Wolfgang Pfeiffer <roto@gmx.net> wrote:

> > You can even get the very latest 2.0 version from
> > experimental, with
> stressed out enough from testing, wish i had left
> sarge on my g4 at this point.

>From my (relatively long-gone) short, IIRC, experiences with testing:
Testing isn't *that* much different from unstable, when it comes to
stability. But the advantage of unstable is that the updates/fixes for
packages seemed coming faster than in testing ...

But yes: unstable *is* unstable ... :) People using it should bring
with them lots of time, a huge package of humor, and the will to risk
running the system ugly against a wall without wondering that their
system really is now dead and gone and ready for repair: And if people
cannot laugh about this last sentence, they probably should not
install unstable. Never-ever ... :)

> > minor, but nice extra features ... works like a
> > charm here, on
> > unstable and KDE ...:) (although sites with
> > java-script snippets still
> > seem to turn up the fan here ... :) IIRC ... 
> > 
> > $ apt-cache policy firefox
> > firefox:
> >   Installed: 1.99+2.0b1+dfsg-1
> >   Candidate: 1.99+2.0b1+dfsg-1
> i am not sure this is really 2.0 anyway, it says 1.99.

*** 1:

the above Firefox says this about its version:

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux ppc; en-US; rv:1.8.1b1) 
Gecko/20060708 BonEcho/2.0b1 (Debian-1.99+2.0b1+dfsg-1)

*** 2:

I can see from the features it has that it's different to previous
non-2.0 versions. IIRC the non-2.0 features. These new features might
be minor, but I like them ... :)


Best Regards

Wolfgang Pfeiffer: /ICQ: 286585973/ + + +  /AIM: crashinglinux/

Key ID: E3037113

Reply to: