Firefox 2.0 Beta 1 announcement imminent

Discussion in 'Firefox' started by kes, Jul 12, 2006.

  1. kes

    kes Guest

    kes, Jul 12, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. kes

    Olgierd Guest

    Osoba przedstawiaj±ca siê jako *kes* stuknê³a w klawisze i oto co
    powsta³o:

    > (If you cannot wait on the other hand...
    > http://www.filehippo.com/download_firefox/)


    How often do you install software from such sort of websites? I would
    *never* try any Mozilla browser from outside of mozilla.com.

    --
    pozdrawiam serdecznie, Olgierd
    ||| JID:eek: ||| http://olgierd.wordpress.com |||
     
    Olgierd, Jul 12, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. kes

    Olgierd Guest

    Osoba przedstawiaj±ca siê jako *kes* stuknê³a w klawisze i oto co
    powsta³o:

    > (If you cannot wait on the other hand...
    > http://www.filehippo.com/download_firefox/)


    How often do you install software from such sort of websites? I would
    *never* try any Mozilla browser from outside of mozilla.com.

    --
    pozdrawiam serdecznie, Olgierd
    ||| JID:eek: ||| http://olgierd.wordpress.com |||
     
    Olgierd, Jul 12, 2006
    #3
  4. kes

    Posco Guest

    Posco, Jul 16, 2006
    #4
  5. kes

    Posco Guest

    Posco, Jul 16, 2006
    #5
  6. kes

    Olgierd Guest

    *Posco* wrote:

    >> How often do you install software from such sort of websites? I would
    >> *never* try any Mozilla browser from outside of mozilla.com.
    >>

    > How about http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/2.0b1/
    > Is that ok for you?


    Yes, I did download Firefox 2.0b1 from this site and installed it both on
    my Ubuntu (home) and W2K (work) PCs. However, after few days of testing
    both of them were uninstalled because too few extensions worked with them.

    --
    pozdrawiam serdecznie, Olgierd
    ||| JID:eek: ||| http://olgierd.wordpress.com |||
     
    Olgierd, Jul 17, 2006
    #6
  7. kes

    Olgierd Guest

    *Posco* wrote:

    >> How often do you install software from such sort of websites? I would
    >> *never* try any Mozilla browser from outside of mozilla.com.
    >>

    > How about http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/2.0b1/
    > Is that ok for you?


    Yes, I did download Firefox 2.0b1 from this site and installed it both on
    my Ubuntu (home) and W2K (work) PCs. However, after few days of testing
    both of them were uninstalled because too few extensions worked with them.

    --
    pozdrawiam serdecznie, Olgierd
    ||| JID:eek: ||| http://olgierd.wordpress.com |||
     
    Olgierd, Jul 17, 2006
    #7
  8. kes

    gwtc Guest

    Olgierd wrote:

    > *Posco* wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>How often do you install software from such sort of websites? I would
    >>>*never* try any Mozilla browser from outside of mozilla.com.
    >>>

    >>
    >>How about http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/2.0b1/
    >>Is that ok for you?

    >
    >
    > Yes, I did download Firefox 2.0b1 from this site and installed it both on
    > my Ubuntu (home) and W2K (work) PCs. However, after few days of testing
    > both of them were uninstalled because too few extensions worked with them.
    >

    FF 2.x is not a final release version. It's still in the testing
    stage and isn't ready for prime time yet. It may contain lots of bugs
    and other problems, and extensions may not work for it. Most
    extension authors/developers wait until the final release of a program
    before updating their extension.

    --
    So, You Think You Know Everything?

    Did you know that there are only four words in the English language
    which end in "dous": tremendous, horrendous, stupendous, and hazardous.
     
    gwtc, Jul 17, 2006
    #8
  9. kes

    gwtc Guest

    Olgierd wrote:

    > *Posco* wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>How often do you install software from such sort of websites? I would
    >>>*never* try any Mozilla browser from outside of mozilla.com.
    >>>

    >>
    >>How about http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/2.0b1/
    >>Is that ok for you?

    >
    >
    > Yes, I did download Firefox 2.0b1 from this site and installed it both on
    > my Ubuntu (home) and W2K (work) PCs. However, after few days of testing
    > both of them were uninstalled because too few extensions worked with them.
    >

    FF 2.x is not a final release version. It's still in the testing
    stage and isn't ready for prime time yet. It may contain lots of bugs
    and other problems, and extensions may not work for it. Most
    extension authors/developers wait until the final release of a program
    before updating their extension.

    --
    So, You Think You Know Everything?

    Did you know that there are only four words in the English language
    which end in "dous": tremendous, horrendous, stupendous, and hazardous.
     
    gwtc, Jul 17, 2006
    #9
  10. kes

    Olgierd Guest

    *gwtc* wrote":

    > FF 2.x is not a final release version. It's still in the testing stage
    > and isn't ready for prime time yet. It may contain lots of bugs and other
    > problems, and extensions may not work for it. Most extension
    > authors/developers wait until the final release of a program before
    > updating their extension.


    Sure, I do know what 'beta' is for ;-)

    --
    pozdrawiam serdecznie, Olgierd
    ||| JID:eek: ||| http://olgierd.wordpress.com |||
     
    Olgierd, Jul 18, 2006
    #10
  11. kes

    Olgierd Guest

    *gwtc* wrote":

    > FF 2.x is not a final release version. It's still in the testing stage
    > and isn't ready for prime time yet. It may contain lots of bugs and other
    > problems, and extensions may not work for it. Most extension
    > authors/developers wait until the final release of a program before
    > updating their extension.


    Sure, I do know what 'beta' is for ;-)

    --
    pozdrawiam serdecznie, Olgierd
    ||| JID:eek: ||| http://olgierd.wordpress.com |||
     
    Olgierd, Jul 18, 2006
    #11
  12. kes

    gwtc Guest

    Olgierd wrote:
    > *gwtc* wrote":
    >
    >
    >>FF 2.x is not a final release version. It's still in the testing stage
    >>and isn't ready for prime time yet. It may contain lots of bugs and other
    >>problems, and extensions may not work for it. Most extension
    >>authors/developers wait until the final release of a program before
    >>updating their extension.

    >
    >
    > Sure, I do know what 'beta' is for ;-)
    >

    Well, how am I supposed to know that. Lots of people don't know what
    an alpha, beta, or rc is, but they download the program anyways, and
    have lots of problems, so they complain in these and other newsgroups
    -- "whats wrong with this stupid program!?" come the screams

    Futhermore, since FF 2.x is still in the testing stage, the best place
    to be asking questions is in the developers group:

    mozilla.dev.apps.firefox

    --
    So, You Think You Know Everything?

    Did you know that the up and coming Mercedes-Benz Bionic Car will be
    based on the sleekness and stylish of a fish in water -- the
    streamline contours of a box fish that is?
     
    gwtc, Jul 19, 2006
    #12
  13. kes

    Olgierd Guest

    *gwtc* wrote:

    > Well, how am I supposed to know that. Lots of people don't know what an
    > alpha, beta, or rc is, but they download the program anyways, and have
    > lots of problems, so they complain in these and other newsgroups -- "whats
    > wrong with this stupid program!?" come the screams


    So I am *really* amazed that Mozilla Corp. allowed such an easy access to
    these files from their website. If someone sees 'old' 1.5.0.4 and 'new'
    2.0b1 Firefox he may be eager to choose just the newer application.

    --
    pozdrawiam serdecznie, Olgierd
    ||| JID:eek: ||| http://olgierd.wordpress.com |||
     
    Olgierd, Jul 19, 2006
    #13
  14. kes

    Miller Guest

    *Olgierd* wrote on 19.07.06 23:28:
    > *gwtc* wrote:
    >
    >> Well, how am I supposed to know that. Lots of people don't know what an
    >> alpha, beta, or rc is, but they download the program anyways, and have
    >> lots of problems, so they complain in these and other newsgroups -- "whats
    >> wrong with this stupid program!?" come the screams

    >
    > So I am *really* amazed that Mozilla Corp. allowed such an easy access to
    > these files from their website. If someone sees 'old' 1.5.0.4 and 'new'
    > 2.0b1 Firefox he may be eager to choose just the newer application.


    I wouldn't call http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/2.0b1/
    an easy access. The "normal" user tends to download software from (official)
    homepages, not from deep down folders of an ftp-server.

    cu, Miller
     
    Miller, Jul 19, 2006
    #14
  15. Miller wrote:
    > *Olgierd* wrote on 19.07.06 23:28:
    >> *gwtc* wrote:
    >>
    >>> Well, how am I supposed to know that. Lots of people don't know what an
    >>> alpha, beta, or rc is, but they download the program anyways, and have
    >>> lots of problems, so they complain in these and other newsgroups -- "whats
    >>> wrong with this stupid program!?" come the screams

    >> So I am *really* amazed that Mozilla Corp. allowed such an easy access to
    >> these files from their website. If someone sees 'old' 1.5.0.4 and 'new'
    >> 2.0b1 Firefox he may be eager to choose just the newer application.

    >
    > I wouldn't call http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/2.0b1/
    > an easy access. The "normal" user tends to download software from (official)
    > homepages, not from deep down folders of an ftp-server.
    >
    > cu, Miller


    Mozilla is run 'open source'. That means EVERY build/test/version is
    available 'openly' so that anyone can have access to it and contribute.

    If it was 'impossible' to get to, then it wouldnt be very open source
    would it? So it has to exist someplace, and an ftp folder is a good spot
    seeing as the idea is to make it accessible for download in the first
    place. Whats bad about that is that some people like to give that
    address out, without explaining the reality behind the availability.

    You can get to the release build by downloading here
    http://www.mozilla.com/thunderbird/
    You can get the nightly builds (which are 2.0) here
    http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Download_Mozilla_Source_Code#Nightlies
     
    Mozilla Champion (Dan), Jul 20, 2006
    #15
  16. kes

    gwtc Guest

    Mozilla Champion (Dan) wrote:
    > Miller wrote:
    >
    >>*Olgierd* wrote on 19.07.06 23:28:
    >>
    >>>*gwtc* wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Well, how am I supposed to know that. Lots of people don't know what an
    >>>>alpha, beta, or rc is, but they download the program anyways, and have
    >>>>lots of problems, so they complain in these and other newsgroups -- "whats
    >>>>wrong with this stupid program!?" come the screams
    >>>
    >>>So I am *really* amazed that Mozilla Corp. allowed such an easy access to
    >>>these files from their website. If someone sees 'old' 1.5.0.4 and 'new'
    >>>2.0b1 Firefox he may be eager to choose just the newer application.

    >>
    >>I wouldn't call http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/2.0b1/
    >>an easy access. The "normal" user tends to download software from (official)
    >>homepages, not from deep down folders of an ftp-server.
    >>
    >>cu, Miller

    >
    >
    > Mozilla is run 'open source'. That means EVERY build/test/version is
    > available 'openly' so that anyone can have access to it and contribute.
    >
    > If it was 'impossible' to get to, then it wouldnt be very open source
    > would it? So it has to exist someplace, and an ftp folder is a good spot
    > seeing as the idea is to make it accessible for download in the first
    > place. Whats bad about that is that some people like to give that
    > address out, without explaining the reality behind the availability.
    >
    > You can get to the release build by downloading here
    > http://www.mozilla.com/thunderbird/
    > You can get the nightly builds (which are 2.0) here
    > http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Download_Mozilla_Source_Code#Nightlies

    when you look at the link:
    http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/2.0b1/

    you'll notice that the beta program is listed on a release link.
    People will think that 2.0b1 is an offical release program, when its
    really not. Its still in the testing stage. Alpha, betas, and RCs
    should be listed else where. Maybe change the "releases" to "testing"
    or something like that.

    --
    So, You Think You Know Everything?

    Did you know that TYPEWRITER is the longest word that can be made
    using the letters only on one row of the keyboard.
     
    gwtc, Jul 20, 2006
    #16
  17. gwtc wrote:
    > Mozilla Champion (Dan) wrote:
    >> Miller wrote:
    >>
    >>> *Olgierd* wrote on 19.07.06 23:28:
    >>>
    >>>> *gwtc* wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Well, how am I supposed to know that. Lots of people don't know
    >>>>> what an
    >>>>> alpha, beta, or rc is, but they download the program anyways, and have
    >>>>> lots of problems, so they complain in these and other newsgroups --
    >>>>> "whats
    >>>>> wrong with this stupid program!?" come the screams
    >>>>
    >>>> So I am *really* amazed that Mozilla Corp. allowed such an easy
    >>>> access to
    >>>> these files from their website. If someone sees 'old' 1.5.0.4 and 'new'
    >>>> 2.0b1 Firefox he may be eager to choose just the newer application.
    >>>
    >>> I wouldn't call
    >>> http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/2.0b1/
    >>> an easy access. The "normal" user tends to download software from
    >>> (official)
    >>> homepages, not from deep down folders of an ftp-server.
    >>>
    >>> cu, Miller

    >>
    >>
    >> Mozilla is run 'open source'. That means EVERY build/test/version is
    >> available 'openly' so that anyone can have access to it and contribute.
    >>
    >> If it was 'impossible' to get to, then it wouldnt be very open source
    >> would it? So it has to exist someplace, and an ftp folder is a good
    >> spot seeing as the idea is to make it accessible for download in the
    >> first place. Whats bad about that is that some people like to give
    >> that address out, without explaining the reality behind the availability.
    >>
    >> You can get to the release build by downloading here
    >> http://www.mozilla.com/thunderbird/
    >> You can get the nightly builds (which are 2.0) here
    >> http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Download_Mozilla_Source_Code#Nightlies
    >>

    > when you look at the link:
    > http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/2.0b1/
    >
    > you'll notice that the beta program is listed on a release link. People
    > will think that 2.0b1 is an offical release program, when its really
    > not. Its still in the testing stage. Alpha, betas, and RCs should be
    > listed else where. Maybe change the "releases" to "testing" or
    > something like that.
    >



    A release means just what it says, its been released. Tho Mozilla tends
    to use the term 'release' to refer to 'official release versions' thats
    not written in stone, a test release is still a release, this one
    happens to be a beta release.

    In fact that fact is expressed right there... in the numbering of the
    release... 2.0b1 thats two point zero BETA one

    Dont point people to someplace without explaining where or what that
    something represents! If you mention an ftp site where you can get
    something its responsible to provide the information regarding such in
    such a manner as to be understood. The ftp site wont 'explain' anything
    (there are html sites that do that). Since, in your wisdom (by posting
    an ftp link), you deem those html sites unnecessary it should be your
    responsibility to mention the pertinent points.

    You mentioned the ftp site, yet didnt explain it was to a BETA product -
    it was YOU who messed up, not the site.

    um, thats a generic you, not you in particular
     
    Mozilla Champion (Dan), Jul 20, 2006
    #17
  18. kes

    gwtc Guest

    Mozilla Champion (Dan) wrote:

    > gwtc wrote:
    >
    >>Mozilla Champion (Dan) wrote:
    >>
    >>>Miller wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>*Olgierd* wrote on 19.07.06 23:28:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>*gwtc* wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Well, how am I supposed to know that. Lots of people don't know
    >>>>>>what an
    >>>>>>alpha, beta, or rc is, but they download the program anyways, and have
    >>>>>>lots of problems, so they complain in these and other newsgroups --
    >>>>>>"whats
    >>>>>>wrong with this stupid program!?" come the screams
    >>>>>
    >>>>>So I am *really* amazed that Mozilla Corp. allowed such an easy
    >>>>>access to
    >>>>>these files from their website. If someone sees 'old' 1.5.0.4 and 'new'
    >>>>>2.0b1 Firefox he may be eager to choose just the newer application.
    >>>>
    >>>>I wouldn't call
    >>>>http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/2.0b1/
    >>>>an easy access. The "normal" user tends to download software from
    >>>>(official)
    >>>>homepages, not from deep down folders of an ftp-server.
    >>>>
    >>>>cu, Miller
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Mozilla is run 'open source'. That means EVERY build/test/version is
    >>>available 'openly' so that anyone can have access to it and contribute.
    >>>
    >>>If it was 'impossible' to get to, then it wouldnt be very open source
    >>>would it? So it has to exist someplace, and an ftp folder is a good
    >>>spot seeing as the idea is to make it accessible for download in the
    >>>first place. Whats bad about that is that some people like to give
    >>>that address out, without explaining the reality behind the availability.
    >>>
    >>>You can get to the release build by downloading here
    >>>http://www.mozilla.com/thunderbird/
    >>>You can get the nightly builds (which are 2.0) here
    >>>http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Download_Mozilla_Source_Code#Nightlies
    >>>

    >>
    >>when you look at the link:
    >>http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/2.0b1/
    >>
    >>you'll notice that the beta program is listed on a release link. People
    >>will think that 2.0b1 is an offical release program, when its really
    >>not. Its still in the testing stage. Alpha, betas, and RCs should be
    >>listed else where. Maybe change the "releases" to "testing" or
    >>something like that.
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    > A release means just what it says, its been released. Tho Mozilla tends
    > to use the term 'release' to refer to 'official release versions' thats
    > not written in stone, a test release is still a release, this one
    > happens to be a beta release.
    >
    > In fact that fact is expressed right there... in the numbering of the
    > release... 2.0b1 thats two point zero BETA one
    >
    > Dont point people to someplace without explaining where or what that
    > something represents! If you mention an ftp site where you can get
    > something its responsible to provide the information regarding such in
    > such a manner as to be understood. The ftp site wont 'explain' anything
    > (there are html sites that do that). Since, in your wisdom (by posting
    > an ftp link), you deem those html sites unnecessary it should be your
    > responsibility to mention the pertinent points.
    >
    > You mentioned the ftp site, yet didnt explain it was to a BETA product -
    > it was YOU who messed up, not the site.
    >
    > um, thats a generic you, not you in particular

    yeah, but people find their own way to that link, and a lot of them
    don't know what an alpha, beta, or even rc is. All they see is the
    word release and they think that they can start using it. They don't
    know any difference.

    --
    So, You Think You Know Everything?

    Did you know that TYPEWRITER is the longest word that can be made
    using the letters only on one row of the keyboard.
     
    gwtc, Jul 20, 2006
    #18
  19. gwtc wrote:
    > Mozilla Champion (Dan) wrote:
    >
    >> gwtc wrote:
    >>
    >>> Mozilla Champion (Dan) wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Miller wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> *Olgierd* wrote on 19.07.06 23:28:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> *gwtc* wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Well, how am I supposed to know that. Lots of people don't know
    >>>>>>> what an
    >>>>>>> alpha, beta, or rc is, but they download the program anyways, and
    >>>>>>> have
    >>>>>>> lots of problems, so they complain in these and other newsgroups
    >>>>>>> -- "whats
    >>>>>>> wrong with this stupid program!?" come the screams
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> So I am *really* amazed that Mozilla Corp. allowed such an easy
    >>>>>> access to
    >>>>>> these files from their website. If someone sees 'old' 1.5.0.4 and
    >>>>>> 'new'
    >>>>>> 2.0b1 Firefox he may be eager to choose just the newer application.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I wouldn't call
    >>>>> http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/2.0b1/
    >>>>> an easy access. The "normal" user tends to download software from
    >>>>> (official)
    >>>>> homepages, not from deep down folders of an ftp-server.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> cu, Miller
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Mozilla is run 'open source'. That means EVERY build/test/version is
    >>>> available 'openly' so that anyone can have access to it and contribute.
    >>>>
    >>>> If it was 'impossible' to get to, then it wouldnt be very open
    >>>> source would it? So it has to exist someplace, and an ftp folder is
    >>>> a good spot seeing as the idea is to make it accessible for download
    >>>> in the first place. Whats bad about that is that some people like to
    >>>> give that address out, without explaining the reality behind the
    >>>> availability.
    >>>>
    >>>> You can get to the release build by downloading here
    >>>> http://www.mozilla.com/thunderbird/
    >>>> You can get the nightly builds (which are 2.0) here
    >>>> http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Download_Mozilla_Source_Code#Nightlies
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> when you look at the link:
    >>> http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/2.0b1/
    >>>
    >>> you'll notice that the beta program is listed on a release link.
    >>> People will think that 2.0b1 is an offical release program, when its
    >>> really not. Its still in the testing stage. Alpha, betas, and RCs
    >>> should be listed else where. Maybe change the "releases" to
    >>> "testing" or something like that.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> A release means just what it says, its been released. Tho Mozilla
    >> tends to use the term 'release' to refer to 'official release
    >> versions' thats not written in stone, a test release is still a
    >> release, this one happens to be a beta release.
    >>
    >> In fact that fact is expressed right there... in the numbering of the
    >> release... 2.0b1 thats two point zero BETA one
    >>
    >> Dont point people to someplace without explaining where or what that
    >> something represents! If you mention an ftp site where you can get
    >> something its responsible to provide the information regarding such in
    >> such a manner as to be understood. The ftp site wont 'explain'
    >> anything (there are html sites that do that). Since, in your wisdom
    >> (by posting an ftp link), you deem those html sites unnecessary it
    >> should be your responsibility to mention the pertinent points.
    >>
    >> You mentioned the ftp site, yet didnt explain it was to a BETA product
    >> - it was YOU who messed up, not the site.
    >>
    >> um, thats a generic you, not you in particular

    > yeah, but people find their own way to that link, and a lot of them
    > don't know what an alpha, beta, or even rc is. All they see is the word
    > release and they think that they can start using it. They don't know
    > any difference.
    >


    So, teach them! YOU know the difference dont you?

    Nobody, but NOBODY is born on earth that 'knows' anything, they all have
    to be taught.

    'Spam' is well known, yet there are still enough people who purchase off
    spammers to make it worthwhile. The only thing one can do is educate
    people more.
     
    Mozilla Champion (Dan), Jul 20, 2006
    #19
  20. kes

    Olgierd Guest

    Re: Firefox 2.0 Beta 1 announcement imminent [OT]

    *Mozilla Champion (Dan)* wrote:

    > 'Spam' is well known, yet there are still enough people who purchase off
    > spammers to make it worthwhile. The only thing one can do is educate
    > people more.


    I'd say that cutting quotations is also good manner ;-)

    --
    pozdrawiam serdecznie, Olgierd
    ||| JID:eek: ||| http://olgierd.wordpress.com |||
     
    Olgierd, Jul 20, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Brian
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    420
  2. Patience

    Apologies to all ..... New keyboard imminent!

    Patience, Sep 30, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    452
    Patience
    Sep 30, 2003
  3. John McCallie

    1720 - hard drive detects imminent failure

    John McCallie, Nov 22, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    10,366
    ChristinaAlexia
    Oct 23, 2006
  4. John McCallie

    imminent hd failure

    John McCallie, Nov 25, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    471
    Gimme
    Nov 25, 2003
  5. kes

    Firefox 1.5.0.3 imminent

    kes, May 2, 2006, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    870
    mailman
    May 6, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page