Hi Rick,
Your cousin Pattie in Canada. Came upon this site by
accident. I was sorry to
hear about your daughter. I didn’t
find out until weeks later. I hope
you are toughing out OK.
Pattie
* Rick Lutowski
| Did a quick total on your stats and come up with the following
| percentages:
|
| IE60%
| NS16 (incl compat)
| Moz7
| Opera 4
| Konq 3
| other 10
I guess those are a bit atypical, since it was a Linux site. Mine is
from a general hardware news in Norway (www.ha
* Rick Lutowski
| Did a quick total on your stats and come up with the following
| percentages:
|
| IE60%
| NS16 (incl compat)
| Moz7
| Opera 4
| Konq 3
| other 10
I guess those are a bit atypical, since it was a Linux site. Mine is
from a general hardware news in Norway (www.h
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > * Rick Lutowski
> >
> > | (I have heard NS 4.x is 'dead', but it comprises about
> > | 20% of the browser market, and they keep releaseing new
> > | versions -- doesn't sound so dead to me! But it remains
> > | stuck at 1.1 also. Go figure).
> >
> > I have no idea
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > * Rick Lutowski
> >
> > | (I have heard NS 4.x is 'dead', but it comprises about
> > | 20% of the browser market, and they keep releaseing new
> > | versions -- doesn't sound so dead to me! But it remains
> > | stuck at 1.1 also. Go figure).
> >
> > I have no idea
> * Rick Lutowski
>
> | (I have heard NS 4.x is 'dead', but it comprises about
> | 20% of the browser market, and they keep releaseing new
> | versions -- doesn't sound so dead to me! But it remains
> | stuck at 1.1 also. Go figure).
>
> I have no idea where your numbers are from, but my nu
* Rick Lutowski
| (I have heard NS 4.x is 'dead', but it comprises about
| 20% of the browser market, and they keep releaseing new
| versions -- doesn't sound so dead to me! But it remains
| stuck at 1.1 also. Go figure).
I have no idea where your numbers are from, but my numbers (which
con
> * Rick Lutowski
>
> | (I have heard NS 4.x is 'dead', but it comprises about
> | 20% of the browser market, and they keep releaseing new
> | versions -- doesn't sound so dead to me! But it remains
> | stuck at 1.1 also. Go figure).
>
> I have no idea where your numbers are from, but my n
* Rick Lutowski
| (I have heard NS 4.x is 'dead', but it comprises about
| 20% of the browser market, and they keep releaseing new
| versions -- doesn't sound so dead to me! But it remains
| stuck at 1.1 also. Go figure).
I have no idea where your numbers are from, but my numbers (which
co
On 5/29/2002 11:07 PM, Rick Lutowski wrote:
The lawsuit was in the Java 1.3 timeframe. Browsers
were stuck at 1.1 years before that. Also, the lawsuit
did not affect Netscape 4.x, which also is stuck at 1.1
(I have heard NS 4.x is 'dead', but it comprises about
20% of the browser market, and the
On 5/29/2002 11:07 PM, Rick Lutowski wrote:
> The lawsuit was in the Java 1.3 timeframe. Browsers
> were stuck at 1.1 years before that. Also, the lawsuit
> did not affect Netscape 4.x, which also is stuck at 1.1
> (I have heard NS 4.x is 'dead', but it comprises about
> 20% of the browser mark
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 08:07:19AM -0500, Rick Lutowski wrote:
> debian ships with NS 4,x in contrib.
Debian ships without Netscape Navigator or Communicator. Netscape Navigator
and Communicator 4.77 are in the non-free archive.
> How difficult would it be be for the woody Netscape package to s
Damian Morris wrote:
>
> Browsers have been stuck at 1.1.4 for years because MS is legally
> constrained by Sun from implementing any Java spec past 1.1.4.
> Unfortunately, this of course suits MS to a T - they'd have had to have
> tried much harder to justify something with the scope of .NET if a
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 08:07:19AM -0500, Rick Lutowski wrote:
> debian ships with NS 4,x in contrib.
Debian ships without Netscape Navigator or Communicator. Netscape Navigator
and Communicator 4.77 are in the non-free archive.
> How difficult would it be be for the woody Netscape package to
Damian Morris wrote:
>
> Browsers have been stuck at 1.1.4 for years because MS is legally
> constrained by Sun from implementing any Java spec past 1.1.4.
> Unfortunately, this of course suits MS to a T - they'd have had to have
> tried much harder to justify something with the scope of .NET if
On Tuesday 28 May 2002 10:20 pm, Rick Lutowski wrote:
> Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> > as you think. Users *are* installing add-ons for flash and other crap.
>
> Only the more technically savvy ones. The majority of users
> don't know what a plug-in is and/or couldn't care less. That's
> why any tec
Browsers have been stuck at 1.1.4 for years because MS is legally
constrained by Sun from implementing any Java spec past 1.1.4.
Unfortunately, this of course suits MS to a T - they'd have had to have
tried much harder to justify something with the scope of .NET if a
modern J2SE-compliant JVM w
Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
>
> Rick Lutowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why have browsers been stuck at 1.1 for years? Just a wild
> > guess, but might it have something to do with MS stopping Java
> > support with 1.1, and also controlling 80% of the browser market?
>
> It could also be becau
On Tuesday 28 May 2002 10:20 pm, Rick Lutowski wrote:
> Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> > as you think. Users *are* installing add-ons for flash and other crap.
>
> Only the more technically savvy ones. The majority of users
> don't know what a plug-in is and/or couldn't care less. That's
> why any te
Browsers have been stuck at 1.1.4 for years because MS is legally
constrained by Sun from implementing any Java spec past 1.1.4.
Unfortunately, this of course suits MS to a T - they'd have had to have
tried much harder to justify something with the scope of .NET if a
modern J2SE-compliant JVM
Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
>
> Rick Lutowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why have browsers been stuck at 1.1 for years? Just a wild
> > guess, but might it have something to do with MS stopping Java
> > support with 1.1, and also controlling 80% of the browser market?
>
> It could also be beca
21 matches
Mail list logo
