On 2018-04-04 19:12, Wol's lists wrote:
> Different horses, different courses. I believe the indent was dropped
> to save a keystroke, so why the double-space is there (requiring an
> extra keystroke) I don't know.
>
> And why use secretarial style when you're typesetting? One is for
> letters, t
On 02/04/18 21:50, Philip Webb wrote:
180402 Dale wrote:
After each period at the end of a sentence, I put in two spaces, not one.
Something I was taught years ago somewhere and still do.
I only put one after a comma tho.
That is correct professional secretarial style, which I always follow too
On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 08:21:17AM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote
> On 2018-04-02 03:59, Dale wrote:
>
> > That last bit should read can NOT win. Brain didn't quite make it all
> > the way to keyboard. lol
>
> I read it as beautifully subtle sarcasm, so it worked fine as it was.
>
> BTW, your mails
Am Dienstag, 3. April 2018, 11:02:32 CEST schrieb Neil Bothwick:
> On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 09:28:40 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > > After each period at the end of a sentence, I put in two spaces,
> > > > not one. Something I was taught years ago somewhere and still do.
> > > > I only put one afte
On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 09:28:40 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > After each period at the end of a sentence, I put in two spaces,
> > > not one. Something I was taught years ago somewhere and still do.
> > > I only put one after a comma tho.
> >
> > That is correct professional secretarial style
On Monday, 2 April 2018 21:50:30 BST Philip Webb wrote:
> 180402 Dale wrote:
> > After each period at the end of a sentence, I put in two spaces, not one.
> > Something I was taught years ago somewhere and still do.
> > I only put one after a comma tho.
>
> That is correct professional secretarial
Philip Webb wrote:
> 180402 Dale wrote:
>> After each period at the end of a sentence, I put in two spaces, not one.
>> Something I was taught years ago somewhere and still do.
>> I only put one after a comma tho.
> That is correct professional secretarial style, which I always follow too.
>
>> Cou
180402 Dale wrote:
> After each period at the end of a sentence, I put in two spaces, not one.
> Something I was taught years ago somewhere and still do.
> I only put one after a comma tho.
That is correct professional secretarial style, which I always follow too.
> Could that be triggering somet
Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Daniel Frey wrote:
>> On 04/02/18 08:21, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
>>> BTW, your mails are full of strange space characters
>> I don't see any extra spaces in Dale's message
> After every "." there is a non-breakable space inserted.
> I guess this is an attempt of some editor to n
180402 Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On 2018-04-02 08:26, Daniel Frey wrote:
>> I don't see any extra spaces in Dale's message, you should also
>> probably check your local configuration.
> They render fine for me in mutt/neomutt, too.
Same here.
> I can only see the strange spaces in my editor (emacs 2
Daniel Frey wrote:
> On 04/02/18 08:21, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
>>
>> BTW, your mails are full of strange space characters
>
> I don't see any extra spaces in Dale's message
After every "." there is a non-breakable space inserted.
I guess this is an attempt of some editor to non-french-space
ASCII t
On 2018-04-02 08:26, Daniel Frey wrote:
> I don't see any extra spaces in Dale's message, you should also
> probably check your local configuration.
They render fine for me in mutt/neomutt, too. I can only see the
strange spaces in my editor (emacs 24) when I start replying to him and
quote his
On 04/02/18 08:21, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On 2018-04-02 03:59, Dale wrote:
>
>> That last bit should read can NOT win. Brain didn't quite make it all
>> the way to keyboard. lol
>
> I read it as beautifully subtle sarcasm, so it worked fine as it was.
>
> BTW, your mails are full of strange spac
On 2018-04-02 03:59, Dale wrote:
> That last bit should read can NOT win. Brain didn't quite make it all
> the way to keyboard. lol
I read it as beautifully subtle sarcasm, so it worked fine as it was.
BTW, your mails are full of strange space characters - I didn't
investigate if they're some Un
Bill Kenworthy wrote:
> On 02/04/18 13:41, Martin Vaeth wrote:
>> Bill Kenworthy wrote:
>>> I use the palemoon overlay.
>> There is also the octopus overlay.
>> Anyway, both can only react to upstream.
>>
>>> builds fine with gcc-6.4
>> Yes, but it has random crashes which do not occur with gcc-5
Walter Dnes wrote:
> Mind you, the Pale Moon team may not
> have the staffing level required to write a new compiler, maintain a
> politically correct "community", integrate real-time-chat into the
> browser, integrate "Pocket" into the browser, rewrite the GUI every so
> often, yada, yada, yada.
On 02/04/18 13:41, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Bill Kenworthy wrote:
>> I use the palemoon overlay.
> There is also the octopus overlay.
> Anyway, both can only react to upstream.
>
>> builds fine with gcc-6.4
> Yes, but it has random crashes which do not occur with gcc-5,
> and as somebody familiar wit
On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 05:41:03AM +, Martin Vaeth wrote
I don't speak officially for Pale Moon. See
https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7818 for the official
word about the manpower situation. Mind you, the Pale Moon team may not
have the staffing level required to write a new
tu...@posteo.de wrote:
> On 04/02 05:41, Martin Vaeth wrote:
>> Bill Kenworthy wrote:
>>> I use the palemoon overlay.
>> There is also the octopus overlay.
>> Anyway, both can only react to upstream.
>>
>>> builds fine with gcc-6.4
>> Yes, but it has random crashes which do not occur with gcc-5,
>
On 04/02 08:23, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> tu...@posteo.de wrote:
> > On 04/02 05:41, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> >> It seems currently that mozilla, google, and apple are the only
> >> oranganizations with enough resources to maintain full browsers,
> >> and any forks of their browsers which diverge more th
tu...@posteo.de wrote:
> On 04/02 05:41, Martin Vaeth wrote:
>> It seems currently that mozilla, google, and apple are the only
>> oranganizations with enough resources to maintain full browsers,
>> and any forks of their browsers which diverge more than a patchset
>> of essentially fixed size are
On 04/02 05:41, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Bill Kenworthy wrote:
> > I use the palemoon overlay.
>
> There is also the octopus overlay.
> Anyway, both can only react to upstream.
>
> > builds fine with gcc-6.4
>
> Yes, but it has random crashes which do not occur with gcc-5,
> and as somebody famili
Bill Kenworthy wrote:
> I use the palemoon overlay.
There is also the octopus overlay.
Anyway, both can only react to upstream.
> builds fine with gcc-6.4
Yes, but it has random crashes which do not occur with gcc-5,
and as somebody familiar with the code posted somewhere,
the reasons are quite
On 02/04/18 08:28, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On 2018-04-01 18:22, Dale wrote:
>
>> Just for giggles, I tried to re-emerge palemoon. This is part of the
>> output I got.
>>
>> * Supported GCC versions: 4.7, 4.9
>> * Selected GCC version: 6.4
> I no longer use the overlay; I have my own private ebuild s
On 2018-04-01 18:22, Dale wrote:
> Just for giggles, I tried to re-emerge palemoon. This is part of the
> output I got.
>
> * Supported GCC versions: 4.7, 4.9
> * Selected GCC version: 6.4
I no longer use the overlay; I have my own private ebuild series. I
tried to remove the old gcc dependenc
I've been using Palemoon, built with gcc/6.40-r1, for about a month now with
only two crashes that I can think of. Otherwise it has been doing everything I
need in a browser and I'm very happy with it. I still keep Firefox around, but
rarely fire it up anymore.
I am curious, however, what the P
Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On 2018-04-01 16:29, Martin Vaeth wrote:
>
>> An alarm sign for me was that palemoon was eventually dropped for
>> android after being practically unmaintained (i.e. with known open
>> security holes) for months/years. A similar alarm sign concerning
>> linux is that they wer
On 2018-04-01 16:29, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> An alarm sign for me was that palemoon was eventually dropped for
> android after being practically unmaintained (i.e. with known open
> security holes) for months/years. A similar alarm sign concerning
> linux is that they were not able to pull the fixes
Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On 2018-04-01 09:15, Martin Vaeth wrote:
>
>> noscript, ublock-origin, and https-everywhere (maybe for privacy also
>> coupled with decentraleyes, duckduckgo{-privacy-esesntials},
>> canvasblocker, skip-redirect)
I had forgottten to mention: These WebExtensions (and some mo
On 2018-04-01 09:15, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> If you speak about defenses like noscript, there are safer variants
> available. I guess the usage of the already mentioned user.js (of
> course adapted to your needs) together with current Webextensions
> noscript, ublock-origin, and https-everywhere (ma
Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On 2018-03-31 08:18, Martin Vaeth wrote:
>
>> As usual, there is the balance
>> "convenience" (old plugins) <-> "security".
>> In the beginning (say, until firefox-52 is no longer supported
>> upstream), there is a certain choice. But after that staying on the
>> "convenie
On 2018-03-31 08:18, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> As usual, there is the balance
> "convenience" (old plugins) <-> "security".
> In the beginning (say, until firefox-52 is no longer supported
> upstream), there is a certain choice. But after that staying on the
> "convenience" side is not sane anymore.
tu...@posteo.de wrote:
>
> There two reasons for which I have switched to waterfox: Privacy and
> memory.
>
> About:config and search for "telemetry"
Telemetry can be switched off.
> Or check how many URLS are configured under about:config.
It is in "about:config", so they can be switched off.
On 03/31 12:17, Arve Barsnes wrote:
> On 31 March 2018 at 10:18, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> > Exceptions are only certain well-defined APIs which will presumably
> > not change dramatically in future versions.
> > For instance, there is a tab API, but essentially it is limited
> > to basic things like
On 31 March 2018 at 10:18, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Exceptions are only certain well-defined APIs which will presumably
> not change dramatically in future versions.
> For instance, there is a tab API, but essentially it is limited
> to basic things like searching/activating/closing/opening tabs etc:
Dale wrote:
>
> I been holding off on upgrading Firefox. Basically, it breaks addons
> that I just can't go without. Tab groups and some other tab utilities
> are among them.
Basically the situation is the following:
>=firefox-57 support so-called WebExtensions which intentionally
are less power
36 matches
Mail list logo
