Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????

Reply
Thread Tools

WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????

 
 
thanatoid
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2009
Hi gang...

(The complaints and comments in this post apply to FFox ver
1.8.1.20 since I am still using 98SELite.)

I can hardly believe I'm doing this, but I am going to be using
FFox a lot because while Opera is supremely configurable and
intelligently designed and I have been using it for years, the
flash plugin and one other DLL crash it all the time and the
Opera forums make it disturbingly clear that Opera has zero
interest in fixing the problem.

OTOH, I installed the latest 98 ver. Flash plugin and FFox runs
like a dream. The design is stupid, but it is very fast and
works perfectly.

Bizarre, but there you are. Opera, the BEST browser becomes
almost unusable, since stupid flash content (unfortunately) is
on so many sites.

[BTW, I feel I must report that I ran across a site which is ALL
flash (it would crash Opera before it even loaded, and you would
see NOTHING in OB1), http://www.skinnydipswimwear.com, and it is
SO well designed that I am almost contemplating being willing to
consider rethinking my anti-flash stance... But maybe the cute
chicks in bikinis have something to do with it as well... Also,
as much as I hate to say this, FFox saved all the images from
the all-flash site which Opera never did - assuming it didn't
crash to begin with... I have NO idea how they did that... Flash
is flash and jpg is jpg... But maybe some embedded jpg's DO go
in the cache...]

Anyway, I basically hate FFox. I hate the fact you have to paste
an URL and THEN hit Enter (I have NOT found an alternative -
Opera's Ctl-D (in the older versions, they seem to like changing
everything except their incomprehensible attitude to the flash
plugin) was SO convenient, and it's easier with OffByOne as
well.

I hate the fact z or x don't take you back or forward. (Yes, alt
right or left arrow /does/ make sense, but why confuse things?
Opera AND OffByOne use z and x, and I would NOT be surprised if
even IE did. But FFox HAS to be different /and/ annoying as
hell.) I also hate its idiotic data paths, and I especially hate
its cache which uses no file extensions.

Unless I go through the tedious "save file as", I have to later
check every file in the cache to see which might be the html or
jpg or zip or flv that I want to keep. Fortunately, Total
Commander makes it very easy, but it's still a lot of idiotic
unnecessary clicking. WHY no extensions, FFox ????

Of course, file sizes are an indication, so I don't have to
check (in an average session) 300 files, but I do have to check
about 100. A REAL drag.

Does ANYONE have an idea how to make stupid Firefox put file
extensions on what it dumps into its cache? Someone told me how
to customize the cache path so it is not buried 4 or 5 levels
deep in the Win directory (thanks again, although memory fails
AFA your name) so perhaps someone will know how to do this.

Thanks.


--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mike Easter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2009
posted to 24hshd only

thanatoid wrote:

> (The complaints and comments in this post apply to FFox ver
> 1.8.1.20 since I am still using 98SELite.)


Even tho' the Moz page for downloading FF 2.0.0.20 tries to tell you that
your version won't run that v. FF, there's something wrong with the alert,
because it is 'thinking about' FF 3. FF 2.0.0.20 runs fine in w98se
without any hack.

And, you can also run FF3 w/ W98se if you use KernelEx.

In either case, you can run a significantly newer v. of FF than the old
1.8 and I would.

> Does ANYONE have an idea how to make stupid Firefox put file
> extensions on what it dumps into its cache?


I don't have any suggestions about the cache issue except to wonder if the
later versions act in exactly the same way.


--
Mike Easter

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
thanatoid
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2009
"Mike Easter" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> posted to 24hshd only
>
> thanatoid wrote:
>
>> (The complaints and comments in this post apply to FFox
>> ver 1.8.1.20 since I am still using 98SELite.)

>
> Even tho' the Moz page for downloading FF 2.0.0.20 tries to
> tell you that your version won't run that v. FF, there's
> something wrong with the alert, because it is 'thinking
> about' FF 3. FF 2.0.0.20 runs fine in w98se without any
> hack.


I discussed this some time ago, the Mozilla page which
supposedly has the 2.0.0.20 ver. has all the links leading to
ver 3.whatever. Very impressive "housekeeping". (I guess it may
be due to their alliance with MS - which I just found pout
about - and therefore "Vista - or at least XP - or death".) I
got this version from somewhere else - I can't remember where
but it wasn't that easy to find.

> And, you can also run FF3 w/ W98se if you use KernelEx.


I've had KernelEx for a while but have not had time or the guts
to try it. Or any great motivation - 98SE does everything I
need.

> In either case, you can run a significantly newer v. of FF
> than the old 1.8 and I would.


In spite of the idiotic version numbering (which I have
discussed here before) this is the latest version before 3. The
file version says "1.8.1.20: 2008121709" but the product version
(below) says "2.0.0.20". Nice and consistent.

>> Does ANYONE have an idea how to make stupid Firefox put
>> file extensions on what it dumps into its cache?

>
> I don't have any suggestions about the cache issue except
> to wonder if the later versions act in exactly the same
> way.


I wonder too, and I do not see any reason why they would change
something that in their view apparently makes them unique and
better - there is simply NO explanation for this idiotic
"feature". Anyway, I am a great believer in "older is better"
and as a rule use 5-10 year old versions of software - it runs
faster, better, has no useless bloat and does everything I need.
I do not believe anything of significance has been written in
the last 5-10 years (some games - but I am not a gamer - and
brand new technology excepted). It's almost all super-bloated
rewrites of stuff from the late 80's and 90's.

Thanks for the reply.

--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
 
Reply With Quote
 
DevilsPGD
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2009
In message <Xns9C04825583B58thanexit@85.214.105.209> thanatoid
<(E-Mail Removed)> was claimed to have wrote:

>>> Does ANYONE have an idea how to make stupid Firefox put
>>> file extensions on what it dumps into its cache?

>>
>> I don't have any suggestions about the cache issue except
>> to wonder if the later versions act in exactly the same
>> way.

>
>I wonder too, and I do not see any reason why they would change
>something that in their view apparently makes them unique and
>better - there is simply NO explanation for this idiotic
>"feature".


Security 101: Don't place files from untrusted sources into known
locations on the filesystem.

In a layered security model you need to build each layer assuming that
all other layers have been compromised. In this case, the exploit that
is being addressed is fairly simple, you assume that the attacker has
the ability to launch an arbitrary program on the victim's system.

Are you safer if the attacker can also load their own executable on the
user's system in a known location in a format that the operation system
will happily execute, or are you safer with the attacker being unable to
locate their payload, and even if they can, being unable to execute it?

The cache is not meant to be accessed by users directly, so the user
experience is not considered, rather, the cache is meant to be accessed
by the browser to improve the browsing experience.
 
Reply With Quote
 
thanatoid
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2009
DevilsPGD <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

<SNIP>

> Security 101: Don't place files from untrusted sources into
> known locations on the filesystem.
>
> In a layered security model you need to build each layer
> assuming that all other layers have been compromised. In
> this case, the exploit that is being addressed is fairly
> simple, you assume that the attacker has the ability to
> launch an arbitrary program on the victim's system.
>
> Are you safer if the attacker can also load their own
> executable on the user's system in a known location in a
> format that the operation system will happily execute, or
> are you safer with the attacker being unable to locate
> their payload, and even if they can, being unable to
> execute it?
>
> The cache is not meant to be accessed by users directly, so
> the user experience is not considered, rather, the cache is
> meant to be accessed by the browser to improve the browsing
> experience.


Well, I must admit what you say here makes perfect sense, still,
it reminds me of MS's attempts to make a "safe" (HAAAR) and
idiot-proof OS. If people know how to manage their computers and
how to be protected, they shouldn't be forced to dig through
layers of directories designed to keep the clueless a little
safer. I believe if well-designed malware /really/ wants to find
something, it will. And you shouldn't allow malware into your
system to begin with, and I have been quite successful with that
- one virus (in an email from a clueless friend) in 15 years.

And "the cache" MAY originally (like 15 years ago) have been
intended to "improve the browsing experience" but with today's
computer and internet transfer speeds, it is really quite
unnecessary. Why do most browsers programs offer to empty the
whole cache, or "refresh" every x seconds/minutes? I use the
cache because I find it annoying to "save" whatever I want to
save when I can just get it from the cache later. In Opera it's
child's play. In IE it is one of the reasons to never use it,
although not the main one. In FFox it's a nightmare due to no
file extensions, and that was my main complaint.

Still, I appreciate your post since it gave me a new angle to
look at /this/ particular aspect of FFox's design - and it's not
bad, AND, as you know, it can be modified fairly easily.

Thanks.


--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
 
Reply With Quote
 
letterman@invalid.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2009
On Thu, 7 May 2009 11:55:17 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Hi gang...
>
>(The complaints and comments in this post apply to FFox ver
>1.8.1.20 since I am still using 98SELite.)
>
>I can hardly believe I'm doing this, but I am going to be using
>FFox a lot because while Opera is supremely configurable and
>intelligently designed and I have been using it for years, the
>flash plugin and one other DLL crash it all the time and the
>Opera forums make it disturbingly clear that Opera has zero
>interest in fixing the problem.
>
>OTOH, I installed the latest 98 ver. Flash plugin and FFox runs
>like a dream. The design is stupid, but it is very fast and
>works perfectly.
>
>Bizarre, but there you are. Opera, the BEST browser becomes
>almost unusable, since stupid flash content (unfortunately) is
>on so many sites.
>
>[BTW, I feel I must report that I ran across a site which is ALL
>flash (it would crash Opera before it even loaded, and you would
>see NOTHING in OB1), http://www.skinnydipswimwear.com, and it is
>SO well designed that I am almost contemplating being willing to
>consider rethinking my anti-flash stance... But maybe the cute
>chicks in bikinis have something to do with it as well... Also,
>as much as I hate to say this, FFox saved all the images from
>the all-flash site which Opera never did - assuming it didn't
>crash to begin with... I have NO idea how they did that... Flash
>is flash and jpg is jpg... But maybe some embedded jpg's DO go
>in the cache...]
>
>Anyway, I basically hate FFox. I hate the fact you have to paste
>an URL and THEN hit Enter (I have NOT found an alternative -
>Opera's Ctl-D (in the older versions, they seem to like changing
>everything except their incomprehensible attitude to the flash
>plugin) was SO convenient, and it's easier with OffByOne as
>well.
>
>I hate the fact z or x don't take you back or forward. (Yes, alt
>right or left arrow /does/ make sense, but why confuse things?
>Opera AND OffByOne use z and x, and I would NOT be surprised if
>even IE did. But FFox HAS to be different /and/ annoying as
>hell.) I also hate its idiotic data paths, and I especially hate
>its cache which uses no file extensions.
>
>Unless I go through the tedious "save file as", I have to later
>check every file in the cache to see which might be the html or
>jpg or zip or flv that I want to keep. Fortunately, Total
>Commander makes it very easy, but it's still a lot of idiotic
>unnecessary clicking. WHY no extensions, FFox ????
>
>Of course, file sizes are an indication, so I don't have to
>check (in an average session) 300 files, but I do have to check
>about 100. A REAL drag.
>
>Does ANYONE have an idea how to make stupid Firefox put file
>extensions on what it dumps into its cache? Someone told me how
>to customize the cache path so it is not buried 4 or 5 levels
>deep in the Win directory (thanks again, although memory fails
>AFA your name) so perhaps someone will know how to do this.
>
>Thanks.


I'm surprised you have used Opera this long. I gave it an honest try.
It's lacking in many ways. FF is far better. I'd even go so far to
say IE is better than Opera. But FF is slow to load, and does use
really odd cache file names. There's an addon program called CACHE
VIEWER that will give you the actual filemnames and allow you to open
and save cache files.
 
Reply With Quote
 
thanatoid
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2009
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

<SNIP>

> I'm surprised you have used Opera this long.


IMO, it *IS* the best browser but it can not handle Flash, at
least on 98.

> I gave it an
> honest try. It's lacking in many ways.


Name ONE feature another browser has that Opera didn't have
first or doesn't at all.

> FF is far better.


It works very well, but it's design leaves a lot to be desired,
as I stated in the OP.

> I'd even go so far to say IE is better than Opera.


You are about to lose credibility!

> But FF
> is slow to load


A little slower than Opera, but I use OffByOne 99% of the time
anyway. When OB1 can't handle a page, I copy the URL and open it
in Opera or FF.

> and does use really odd cache file names.
> There's an addon program called CACHE VIEWER that will give
> you the actual filemnames and allow you to open and save
> cache files.


Now THERE'S some useful info. I hope this program is designed
FOR FFox, and not to find cached things in IE's hidden
directories which has been somewhat of an annoyance for about 15
years.

Thanks.

--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
 
Reply With Quote
 
thanatoid
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2009
thanatoid <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:Xns9C0497FEC9859thanexit@85.214.105.209:

> Now THERE'S some useful info. I hope this program is
> designed FOR FFox, and not to find cached things in IE's
> hidden directories which has been somewhat of an annoyance
> for about 15 years.


Sigh... Most are just that...

This is the only one so far that supposedly works with FFox.
But..."

==================

Author: Tim Johnson
Price: 25$
Size: 30.00 MB
Description:
Cache View is a viewer for the Netscape, Mozilla, Firefox,
Opera, and Internet Explorer caches. Cache View runs on Windows.

==================

THIRTY MB's? That's more than the ****ing browser!

(...)

OK, I found the FFox plugin... 24 KB is more like it...

Thanks very much!

(Just seeing some other ones as well, looks promising, one
should be /just/ right. Thanks again, you have solved a minor
nightmare for me.)


--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
 
Reply With Quote
 
VanguardLH
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2009
thanatoid wrote:

> ... the Mozilla page which supposedly has the 2.0.0.20 ver. has all
> the links leading to ver 3.whatever. Very impressive "housekeeping".
> (I guess it may be due to their alliance with MS - which I just
> found pout about - and therefore "Vista - or at least XP - or
> death".) I got this version from somewhere else - I can't remember
> where but it wasn't that easy to find. ...


Other than Mozilla using the system calls in Windows for their product
to run there, what is this Microsoft alliance to which you allude? I
know that Google dumps $57M per year into Mozilla but I haven't heard
about Microsoft funding any development at Mozilla.

http://www.scroogle.org/mozilla.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...043002508.html
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente...s_revenue.html

Mozilla sold out to Google. I don't know about a sellout by them to
Microsoft (which would be at odds regarding future competing plans by
Google and Microsoft regarding cloud computing).
 
Reply With Quote
 
DevilsPGD
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2009
In message <Xns9C0497FEC9859thanexit@85.214.105.209> thanatoid
<(E-Mail Removed)> was claimed to have wrote:

>Name ONE feature another browser has that Opera didn't have
>first or doesn't at all.


Alright, I'll open the bidding with Firefox's extension support.

Specifically, Adblock Plus (a plugin+service that work together to
ensure a more positive browsing experience)


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
findcontrol("PlaceHolderPrice") why why why why why why why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 2 12-02-2006 03:46 PM
FFox jumping into new tab mode; mouse wheel jumpinginto text size mode kaplan3jiim@comcast.net Firefox 1 07-19-2006 04:23 PM
Mozilla FFox issues to W3C validator which slates my simple form =?Utf-8?B?TmVhbA==?= ASP .Net 0 07-19-2006 10:54 AM
Cleaning C partition FFox, Tbird, Sbird no_one@no_where.invalid Firefox 0 03-16-2006 03:55 PM
FFox 1-7 freezes on 1st startup Paul Firefox 3 11-17-2005 10:36 PM



Advertisments